Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

British Forces, Germany (Cost)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Defence what sum is being paid in the current financial year by the Western German Government to the cost of the British Army of Occupation in Germany; what sum was paid in the two preceding years; and the estimated total costs of the occupying British forces for each of the three years.

The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): The amount to be provided to the Federal German Government during the current financial year for the support of British forces stationed in Germany will not be known until the current negotiations with that Government have been concluded, as I hope they will be shortly. I will then inform the House what has been agreed.
The amounts provided in the two preceding financial years were approximately £160 million in 1954–55 and £72 million in 1955–56. The total cost of maintaining British forces in Germany was approximately £160 million in 1954–55 and £113 million in 1955–56. The estimated total cost for the current financial year is about £114 million.

Mr. Hale: Is the position now, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have undertaken to maintain British forces in Germany as a result of an undertaking with the French who have nearly all their forces in North Africa? Is it not a fact that the German contribution to the American forces has been agreed for the current financial year? What is holding up these negotiations? Does the Chancellor still really expect a payment of £50 million?

Sir W. Monckton: The Answer to the last part of the Question is that there has been a sum fixed for the American forces, and we are still pressing for more than has been offered to us.

Mr. Stokes: What is the difficulty in getting a settlement between us and the Germans if it is so easy for one to be reached between the Americans and the Germans? Secondly, is it not a fact that the Germans have built up a reserve of over £300 million in respect of occupation costs which were not incurred, and has that been taken into consideration?

Sir W. Monckton: The amount of the reserve fund has been borne in mind. The difficulty is that we are not satisfied with the offer that has been made to us, and are pressing for more.

Mr. Peyton: Would my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the West German Government that there is a growing feeling in this country that recent policies in West Germany have been designed to get as much and to give as little as possible to the common cause, and that their recent policies have revived to a dangerous extent old suspicions and prejudices which were beginning to die out?

Sir W. Monckton: I should not like to accept that suggestion. I would say that we are maintaining firmly our desire to get more, and are doing it in the best possible spirit.

Arms and Stores (Inventories)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence whether his Department has an inventory of all arms and stores in the defence Services and the Ministry of Supply.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The keeping of such detailed inventories seems more appropriate to Departmental housekeeping than to central control of policy.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that the three Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply have an inventory of all goods in their possession? How is it possible to determine whether further purchases should be made for the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply until we know what they already have? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his attention to the matter?

Sir W. Monckton: I am giving attention to the matter. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that an inquiry was conducted by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about some of the spendings and purchases which were complained of. One of the things which my right hon. Friend suggested was that my Ministry should investigate the machinery of procurement and provisioning in the Service Departments in order to ensure that they do not hold stocks larger than they need, and also that decisions are passed swiftly down the line, so that the Army, for instance, does not buy stores for a particular unit after a decision to disband it has been taken. That is an illustration. I have taken that suggestion in hand, and there is in progress an inter-Service working party under Ministry of Defence chairmanship.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that a considerable amount of manpower is wasted in looking after all these stores which are virtually in moth-balls and which probably would not be brought out even if there was a war? How does the Minister propose to assist in the matter of manpower requirements for the three Services unles he has adequate knowledge at his disposal as to how much manpower is being used in moth-balling?

Sir W. Monckton: It would involve an enormous addition to expense if I were to require an inventory in the Ministry of each one of the items. I am well aware of the necessity of reducing and getting rid, under the terms of this remit to me of any unnecessary storage and maintenance cost, and I intend to pursue that.

Integration

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an estimate of the savings that could be effected if the various defence Services were fully integrated.

Sir W. Monckton: It would not be possible to give such an estimate without lengthy and detailed research, which I do not think would be justified.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will give this vital matter his whole-hearted attention, because while it will not weaken our

defence organisation and preparation, it will at the same time have the effect of saving a vast sum of money?

Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He can be assured that I am giving this matter my earnest and present attention.

Air Commodore Harvey: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this would be a good exercise for the Service Departments, and that sooner or later it has got to happen—and perhaps sooner? Would he not look at it again?

Mr. Callaghan: Would the Minister turn his attention first to the question of overlapping between the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force, as millions of pounds are being wasted there?

Sir W. Monckton: That is a matter which I have certainly very much in my mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to agree that in order to effect a larger measure of co-ordination and eventually integration he must have greater powers than he presently possesses?

Sir W. Monckton: That is a matter on which I cannot express myself at the moment.

National Service

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Defence if he has yet consulted the Service Ministers upon the desirability of discontinuing the call-up of National Service men for annual training; and what action he proposes to take.

Sir W. Monckton: The arrangements for this year will continue as announced in the White Paper on National Service of last October. I am not yet in a position to say whether any changes in the existing arrangements will be made in future years, but I and my Service colleagues will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that in one camp I visited a number of these men had been ordered to peel potatoes from 8 o'clock to 12.30 in the morning for the whole fifteen days, and that the


authorities were hard put to it to provide work for many of those in that camp? Is this not a gross waste of the time of men withdrawn from industry?

Sir W. Monckton: Until some measure such as was, perhaps, suggested in the last Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) takes place, that question would be a matter for the Secretary of State for War to deal with.

Mr. Stokes: In support of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), may I ask the Minister whether he will at least agree that the numbers involved in the diminution of the call-up as a result of the deferment system is really equivalent to a six months' cut in conscription, and that, therefore, it is as easy to do one as the other?

Sir W. Monckton: I think there is a substantial difference. If there is a six months' cut in the period of service we lose the use of the men at the time when they have been fully trained and are of most value to the Service. Deferment means not taking them in at all until a later stage, when they do the full two years.

Mr. Stokes: I am asking whether the numbers are virtually the same. That is what I want to know.

Sir W. Monckton: The numbers serving at a given moment may be the same, but what I am suggesting is that there is the great advantage that all those who are serving are serving for two years.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Defence the number of National Service men called up in 1955 for their fifteen days' annual training, and the financial cost for that period.

Sir W. Monckton: As the Answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hunter: Arising out of that reply, I should like to ask the Minister to speed up his inquiry into the whole question of the fifteen-day training, because apart from family hardship there is dislocation of industry and commerce, and I am certain that the nation can be saved millions of pounds.

Sir W. Monckton: I certainly do not intend to have any delay in this matter, but hon. Members will appreciate that we are already well into the programme for this year. Perhaps we shall have to look at it for another year.

Following is the Answer:


—
Number of reservists who received fifteen days annual training
Cost‡




£


Royal Navy
5,000*
96,000


Army
213,1001†
About 4,000,000


Royal Air Force
21,600
390,000


TOTAL
239,700
£4,486,000


*Those called up were mostly for twenty days training.


†Including those who attended eight-day camps.


‡Covers allowances, pay, travelling, rations, etc.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if, in the light of Marshal Bulganin's proposal of 8th June, 1956, that nations should make voluntary reductions in their arms programmes without awaiting international agreement, he will now reconsider his refusal to end National Service.

Sir W. Monckton: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave on 6th June to the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates).

Mr. Allaun: But since the cold war has abated and throughout the world the ice is beginning to break up, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not seize this opportunity of saying to the Russians, "Following your cuts of 1,840,000 men we will make cuts, and if you make another cut we will go further still"? Would not this move further relax world tension and produce that atmosphere which would be the condition for a collective disarmament agreement?

Sir W. Monckton: I can say only that I am not prepared at the moment to make a further statement about a reduction of our forces. I understand that the general matter of the supplementary question is being put one day this week to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think


that it would be more appropriate for him than for me to deal with such a broad question.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence on what grounds National Service men are at present exempted from their fifteen days' Reserve training; and if he will now extend them to all cases where family hardship or interference with industry is proved.

Sir W. Monckton: Reserve training can be remitted or deferred on compassionate grounds. Applications are sympathetically considered. No hard and fast rule can however be laid down and individual cases must be dealt with on merits. National Service reservists in a limited number of civilian occupations are also normally exempted from Reserve training.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware of one-man firms which are endangered where there is no substitute for the proprietor whilst he is doing his service? Is he also aware that in many of these very hard cases the men involved do no training at all during the fifteen days?

Sir W. Monckton: As to the one-man firms, I said that each case must be dealt with on its merits, and it is not true that in every case of a one-man firm the hardship is such that a man ought to be excused his service.

N.A.T.O. (Field Marshal Lord Montgomery)

Mr. Healey: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will request the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to terminate the appointment of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander on the grounds that his public statements are not compatible with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy.

Sir W. Monckton: I know of no grounds on which to make a request of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that the Field Marshal was widely reported as saying in Canada on 1st June that if anyone anywhere in the world started an aggression
we should give them the works from the word go with atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, with the biggest thing we've got and with everything we've got "?

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Healey: He added that he did not mind the consequences but would drop a bomb on anyone committing an aggression�ž
Drop the biggest bomb you can and finish them off.
He added that his political superiors probably would not agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] In view of this would the Minister not agree�ž

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is too long.

Mr. Healey: Would the Minister not agree that if the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander is to be allowed to get away with boasts of insubordination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and exhibitions of homicidal mania—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the prestige of N.A.T.O. all over the world will be severely damaged?

Mr. Speaker: I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is Question Time, which we all share together, and that if speeches are made under the guise of supplementary questions other hon. Members will have their rights taken away from them.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order. The speech was made by Field Marshal Montgomery, not by me. I think that the House would feel it very unfair that I should make such serious charges without adducing some evidence in justification of them.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think myself that if the hon. Member will consider the point, he will find that the House will take a different view.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about this quotation of speeches? My hon. Friend asked a question about what he alleged was a difference between statements made by the Field Marshal and the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Minister's Answer was that he knew of no such difference. How else could my hon. Friend have pointed out the difference, without quoting the speech?

Mr. Speaker: To follow the course which the hon. Member followed was


to indulge in debate at Question Time, and these are two different things. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter he should seize an opportunity in debate, and not take away the time for Questions.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. Is it not quite usual to make a quotation when advancing a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Not at such length.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Minister —to take a quite opposite point of view from that expressed by my hon. Friend —whether he is aware that the declaration to use "everything we have got," meaning by that the use of nuclear weapons, in the event of wholesale aggression against the West, is not only the declared policy of the Government, but has been accepted in principle by the Labour Party? Is it not time, leaving aside the merits of some of the speeches made by the Field Marshal, that we stopped attacking one who is a fine soldier and an honourable man?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stokes: Before the Minister gives an answer to that question, may I ask him whether he will take the trouble to embody in it an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) at the same time?

Sir W. Monckton: I am seizing the first opportunity of doing so. I had not seen the full text of the Field Marshal's remarks. They seem to have been made impromptu, if they are correctly reported, at a Press conference, but from the Press reports it seems quite clear that he was merely emphasising the supreme importance of the nuclear deterrent. As I said myself in the recent defence debate, we shall never be the aggressors, but others must be deterred from risking aggression against us by the sure knowledge of the overwhelming retaliation which they will receive in return. [HON.MEMBERS: "Speech."] It has been made abundantly clear by N.A.T.O.—and the Field Marshal himself specifically referred to this—that the decision to use nuclear weapons rests with the political authorities, and so it does.

Forces, Germany (Strength)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Defence the estimated strength in divisions of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, France and the United Kingdom, at present stationed in Germany, also those of East Germany.

Sir W. Monckton: We estimate that there are twenty-two Soviet and seven East German divisions in East Germany. There are five United States and four United Kingdom divisions in West Germany. As regards French forces, as I explained to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 8th February, it would not be appropriate for me to disclose information which, so far as I am aware, the French themselves have not disclosed.

Mr. Henderson: Is the announced reduction of 30,000 men in the Soviet armed forces in Germany likely to result in any reduction in the size of the Western armed forces stationed in Germany?

Sir W. Monckton: We estimate that the reduction would be of the order of one or two divisions, and I cannot say that that of itself would need a change in our forces.

FOREIGN SERVICE (ALLOWANCES)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the difference between the Foreign Service allowances of temporary and permanent members of missions abroad holding comparable senior rank.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): None, Sir.

Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence which I have is very different, and that in fact there are members of missions abroad, holding comparable rank to first and second secretaries, etc., who not only have different salaries but very considerably different allowances, although their duties in regard to entertaining are identical, and in some cases they have to do a great deal more?

Mr. Nutting: If the hon. Member will forward his evidence I will examine it, but I am advised that there is no difference whatsoever in Foreign Service allowances. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking of the language allowance, which is not included in the Foreign Service allowance and is not payable to temporary officers.

UNITED NATIONS (ANTARCTICA)

Mr. Pitman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that there is no provision in the United Nations Charter debarring the United Nations from accepting any claims to territory made over to it by any nation and as a general conference of United Nation members is to consider before the end of 1957 the terms of a revised Charter of the United Nations, he will propose to the nations having claims to Antarctica that they should conditionally offer such claims to United Nations and that United Nations should provisionally accept such claims and forthwith seek revision of its Charter to make such acceptances constitutional.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Pitman: Would it not be wiser to give some time to this consideration, having regard to the fact that so many weary hours have been given to considering disarmament which have almost led to the conviction that the only solution lies in the development of a supranational power of some kind? Would it not be a good thing to have a pilot plan to consider at any rate a supra-national authority in this important field?

Mr. Nutting: As I think I have said before, the proposal which my hon. Friend makes for investing in United Nations sovereignty over this area is not in keeping with the principles of the Charter as it stands, nor is there any provision in the Charter for it. As to the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, it has not yet been convened, and it is only to make recommendations to the twelfth session of the General Assembly, in 1957, about the timing and procedure for a Charter review conference. It is not to take any decision on any matter of substance itself.

MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent supply to Egypt of warships bearing the Polish ensign, including two destroyers, he will take steps, with the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration, to enable Israel to obtain the arms necessary for her defence.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government have no definite information that would confirm the assumption on which this Question is based. Their policy on arms to the Middle East countries remains as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) on 28th March.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter? Is he aware that the Egyptian Press has applauded this action on the part of Russia? Is he aware that these vessels are very effective warships, that they are also minelayers and cannot possibly be used for the purpose, referred to in the Tripartite Declaration, of ensuring internal security and legitimate defence? Is he also aware that if they were used they could establish an effective blockade against Israel by mining, because they can lay about eighty mines each, and that they have a maximum speed of about 30 knots? Will he look into this matter and, if they have been supplied, will he see that something effective is done about balancing the position as far as Israel is concerned?

Mr. Nutting: We have no definite information about their supply. If we have definite information we shall take that information into account in deciding our arms deliveries policy.

Mr. Robens: If that is taken into account, together with the report that the Czechs are likely to supply arms to Syria, is it not time that the British Government, together with the other two Powers concerned in the Tripartite Declaration, did something about giving quality arms to Israel to maintain the balance of arms in that part of the world?

Mr. Nutting: Both quantity and quality are taken into account in deciding the delivery of arms to both sides, as my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said on repeated occasions.

EURATOM

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will enter into discussions with the countries sponsoring the Euratom proposals with a view to clarifying the conditions under which the United Kingdom could be a member of Euratom.

Mr. Nutting: The proposed scope and powers of Euratom have already been set out in a report which was adopted by the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands at a meeting in Venice on 29th–30th May. This report contemplates that a permanent connection would be established within the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation between Euratom and the other member countries, and in particular calls for close association between Euratom and the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government look forward to associating with Euratom within the framework of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question relates to British participation as a member of Euratom? Will he take note of the very important statement made by M. Monnet that British participation in Euratom is indispensable? Will he at least give an undertaking that the Government have not closed their mind to the possibility that such British participation might be advantageous to this country and European countries as well?

Mr. Nutting: Notwithstanding what has been said by M. Monnet, for whom I have the greatest respect, the Euratom plan as it stands is incompatible with the interests of the United Kingdom, because Euratom is to have a monopoly of the ownership and distribution of raw materials and will fix prices and control the use of those materials which it sells to outside countries. That is not compatible with United Kingdom interests, but, nevertheless, we hope that the Euratom project will develop complementary-wise with that of 0.E.E.C., in which we are already playing a full Part.

ATOMIC TEST EXPLOSIONS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the atomic tests already announced, he will seek to reach agreement with the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the termination of similar tests by those countries and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nutting: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 7th June, Her Majesty's Government will take every appropriate opportunity of discussing methods of regulating and limiting test explosions which take account of their position and that of other Powers.

Mr. Shinwell: But is not that a somewhat nebulous reply? Cannot we have a definite assurance that when the contemplated tests by Her Majesty's Government have been undertaken they will then decide quite definitely, so far as we are concerned, that we are not disposed to undertake any further tests, and make that well known to the U.S.S.R. and the United States?

Mr. Nutting: I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about, because in March this year M. Moch, on behalf of France, and I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, gave effect to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes in this very Question for the limitation and ultimately the prohibiton of test explosions, but that plan was rejected as inadequate by the representative of the Soviet Union.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Report published today by the Medical Research Council's Committee on the hazards to man of nuclear and allied radiation underlines the grave danger that mankind will suffer if there is any continuance of these nuclear tests?

Mr. Nutting: I will, of course, bear that in mind, and that is why we anticipated those conclusions in the plan which France and the United Kingdom launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and I should have thought that the House would have given the Government some credit for that and for trying to get agreement on this question. So far, we have


failed to get any reaction from the Soviet Union other than a negative one.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the statement which the Medical Research Council issued to the Press this morning, when properly examined, gives rise to a real sense of alarm, because it is perfectly obvious that we have no way at all of measuring the consequences of what is now happening? Is it not a fact —and if it is not, the position should be made clear—that the Soviet Union has offered to make no further tests? If that is so, what is the response of the Government to the offer?

Mr. Nutting: The response of the Government to the offer was contained in the proposals which were launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, namely, to agree that, subject to a staged and phased programme, there should be prohibition of test explosions, but that those must be subject to effective international control. Whatever the conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman draws from the Report of the Medical Research Council may be, I would claim that it shows the urgency of trying to get agreement on this question in the United Nations, and that is precisely what the Government are engaged in doing, and what we will press at the meeting of the Disarmament Commission in July.

Mr. Bevan: But is it not now established that we have in this matter the one form of control which is effective, namely, that if any nation conducts a hydrogen or nuclear bomb test, it is known, and therefore are we not in the position of having some sort of reassurance in this field? If that is the case, ought we not to take advantage of it, and not go on frightening people all over the world by such tests?

Mr. Nutting: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. It may be true that the very biggest tests are self-policed, or whatever the phrase has been, but it is also true that there are a number of test explosions which can take place without any detection.

Mr. Bevan: May I follow up that aspect
again? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is really not a satisfactory position. It may be the case that some small nuclear tests are not easily detectable, but those are the tests which do the least damage. We are concerned with those tests which cause radio-active consequences to man-

kind all over the world. Will not the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take up the Soviet Union's offer in respect of the tests of large bombs?

Mr. Nutting: We have done so, and since the right hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the proposals which were launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, I would invite him to read them. He will see that they cover all kinds of tests, large or small.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very large subject. Mr. Younger.

GERMANY (COMPENSATION LAW)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he is making with a view to ensuring that the revised text of the Restitutions Law of the Federal Republic of Germany adequately implements the undertaking given by the Federal Republic in the Bonn Agreements to compensate those who were persecuted by the Nazis on account of nationality.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government count on the Federal German Republic to fulfil its obligation under the Bonn Settlement Convention to provide adequate compensation for persons who were persecuted during the Nazi rágime on grounds of nationality. The Bill incorporating the revised text of the Federal Compensation Law of 1953 does not appear to fulfil this obligation, and further representations in this sense have been made to the Federal German authorities by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bonn.

Mr. Younger: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the attitude of the German courts so far in implementing this quite clear obligation to a small but deserving group of people has been very disappointing indeed, that the new draft appears to be equally disappointing, and that he would be doing a great service if he could persuade the German Federal Government that to revise this text would do a great deal for their reputation?

Mr. Nutting: We shall continue to do what we can in this respect. I would


remind the right hon. Gentleman that the final reading of this Bill in the Upper House of the German Parliament takes place this month, and we hope that it will be suitably amended in the sense which he and the Government desire.

CYPRUS N.A.T.O.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now seek the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation over the Cyprus problem.

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by referring the present situation in Cyprus to N.A.T.O.

Mr. Grimond: I agree that the main Cyprus problem is clearly one for the Commonwealth itself, but have not the Government themselves pointed out that the whole of the Cyprus difficulty is leading to increasing bitterness between Greece and Turkey, and greatly weakening the defences of the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Would it not at least be possible to raise that part of the problem, and that part only, with N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Nutting: We deeply regret the deterioration in relations within N.A.T.O. which has been caused by this dispute, but that is not to say that N.A.T.O. is the correct machinery for resolving the present difficulties in relation to Cyprus.

Mr. Robens: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said recently that Cyprus is required as a base in order to protect Middle East oil, and as Americans get a substantial amount of oil from the Middle East, is it not a question of dealing with the N.A.T.O. Powers in relation to a base which is there for the sole purpose of depriving the Soviet of Middle East oil?

Mr. Nutting: It may have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that the Middle East is outside the area of N.A.T.O.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Racial Discrimination (Report)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has noted the recommendation made by the

committee to investigate racial discrimination in shops and other businesses in Northern Rhodesia that a statutory race relations board should be set up with the task of ensuring that all possible steps are taken to implement the Government's declared policy of removing discrimination on the ground of race alone; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): My right hon. Friend has read the report, and so noted the recommendations of the Committee. The report has not yet been considered by the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council and no decisions on the recommendations made in it can be taken until this has been done.

Mr. Dugdale: Does not the right hon.
Gentleman agree, having regard to the fact that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) was given a first Reading unanimously by the House this week, that similar action to prevent racial discrimination might well be taken in Northern Rhodesia? Will he at least encourage the Government of Northern Rhodesia to take such action?

Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that as the Northern Rhodesian Government have set up the Committee themselves, it would be only courteous for us to allow them to consider the recommendations and for them to be considered in the Legislative Assembly before we comment.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Juvenile Prisoners

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children under the age of 14 years have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in Kenya for activities connected with Mau Mau.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the official records at Kamiti Prison, Kenya, showed that a girl prisoner No. 13222/J, admitted 21st September, 1954, sentenced to seven years' hard labour, was 11 years of age, and girl prisoners No. 127950, admitted 20th August, 1954, and No. 7966/J, admitted 12th June,


1954, sentenced to Governor's pleasure, maximum security, were 12 years of age, when under Kenya legislation no child under the age of 14 years may be sentenced to imprisonment; and what investigation was made prior to their imprisonment that they were in fact 14 years of age.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the errors in the prison records in Kenya relating to the imprisonment of girls stated in the records to be under 14 years of age.

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement as to how girls came to be recorded in the Kenya prison records as being under the age of 14 years.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Under Kenya legislation no child under the age of 14 may be sentenced to imprisonment. A person under 18 who is convicted by a court on a capital charge must be sentenced to detention during the Governor's pleasure and such detention may be in prison. Where it appears to a court that an accused person may be a child or a young person, the court has to satisfy itself as to the age of the accused, if necessary by calling evidence including medical evidence.
The ages of some girls at Kamiti prison are shown in the records as being under 14. In all cases, the courts which convicted had to satisfy themselves that the accused were of or over that age. The prisoners' ages are not shown on commitment warrants which indicate, however, whether the prisoner has been sentenced as a juvenile, between the ages of 14 and 18, or as an adult.
The prison record-sheets are made out on the admission of prisoners by an African clerk from the commitment warrants and from the answers of the prisoners. In some cases, it has been found that the ages shown in the record-sheets have been subsequently altered in different ink, to show a lower age, as in the case of 13222/J where the figure 18 was altered to 11. It is not known by whom, when or for what purpose these alterations were made, but no responsible officer authorised them.
The ages of persons can only be determined, in the absence of any system of registration of their births, by reference to their physical development, and, in Africa, to their tribal age groups. Examination of all female juvenile prisoners now at Kamiti by a panel of three Kikuyu women of equivalent standing to tribal elders has confirmed that all were of or over the age of 14 and of adult tribal age groups when sentenced.

Mr. Dugdale: Is this not a most disturbing statement? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give that the ages of these and other children, which he has now given us, are the correct ages? Will he have a complete investigation made into the ages of all people who may possibly be under the age of 14?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, the ages are the result of medical examination, of expert examination. However, in view of the apparent differences between the particulars of prisoners published by Miss Fletcher and the original prison records, at my invitation Miss Fletcher agreed to come to the Colonial Office this morning with her copies of the prison records, to discuss these differences with officers of my Department and with the Attorney-General of Kenya, whom I had asked to come home to England, bringing those originals with him. The age given on the first original record examined, prisoner 13222/J, a married Kikuyu woman, showed an alteration from 18 to 11. Miss Fletcher said that there were no alterations in the ages shown on the original records when she copied details from them, and she offered no comment on the fact that the age she ascribed to this prisoner, 11, was the same as the altered age on the original records. She then declined to give any further assistance in arriving at the truth of this or other anomalies without legal advice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly. Hon. Gentlemen might let me finish my Answer. I have no quarrel with that whatever. In fairness to her, I must say that she did not withdraw any allegations, but wished to have time to prepare her case with legal advice.

Mr. Brockway: While appreciating the action of the right hon. Gentleman in summoning the Attorney-General of


Kenya to this country, so that there might be a thorough investigation of the charges which have been made, may I ask him whether his reply to the House today does not indicate that these prison records have included the ages of children under 14 years of age? Is it not the case that when Miss Fletcher met the Attorney-General of Kenya at the Colonial Office this morning she not only stood by every statement which she had made, but also indicated that she was prepared to make a legal deposition to that effect as soon as Mr. Dingle Foot had returned to this country, Mr. Foot being her legal adviser?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that anything I have said is broadly in conflict with what the hon. Member has said. Miss Fletcher declined to go further into this matter this morning, and none of my officers, nor the Attorney-General of Kenya thought that that was unreasonable, in the absence of legal advice. When she has had legal advice, which will be available very soon, I hope that she will do so. She does not withdraw her charges, but I must make absolutely plain that, having examined all the records concerned with great care—and I have the record of the first case here with the original figure in red ink altered in blue ink to 11 by some person unknown—I also stand by everything that I said during the debate and today.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House that on the prison records every one of these ages to which reference has been made has been altered, or is it the fact that, despite the alterations in certain cases, there were still cases in which an entry was made and not later altered, to the effect that a child under 14 had been in prison?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Where in fact there had been alterations, the alterations have had the result of bringing the age down below the level at which a child could have been sentenced to imprisonment.

Mr. Paget: In view of the fact that there is admirable approved school accommodation for boys, but none for girls, is it really contrary to the safety of the Colony to release girl juveniles who are now held for Mau Mau offences? Can we not let out these young girls under 18 without any real danger to our safety?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is another matter. In the debate I dealt with the particular facilities available for juvenile girls. I join with the hon. and learned Member in wishing that there were the same facilities for juvenile girls as there is for juvenile boys of approved school kind, but in fact I am assured—and I am convinced that this is so—that the particular facilities available for the girls have the attributes of approved schools, and that they are segregated from the main part of the women's prison.

Mr. Bevan: There is still one point which is rather obscure. The right hon. Gentleman read a very long Answer and the point may not have been clear. I do not complain. Is it the fact that the prison authorities signed the list showing the child to be under the legal age?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. That is not so. The ages were entered by an African clerk, and they have in fact been altered. It was on how they came to be altered that I and my officers were anxious to have a discussion this morning with Miss Fletecher, but it seems difficult to carry this matter further until she has had that outside and legal assistance which, I readily acknowledge, I have myself.

Mr. Bevan: That was not my question. The question I asked was whether it was a fact that the list which the right hon. Gentleman has seen and the list provided by Miss Fletcher contained the signature of the prison authorities. That list showed a child in prison under the legal age. Was the list altered after the signature of the prison authorities, or before?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In fact the age has been altered from 18 to 11 in an ink of a colour different from that on the original statement. [Interruption.] I should be very interested to know when, and by whom. When the original statement was made, it included the officer's and all other relevant signatures and the age of this particular prisoner. I am deliberately concentrating on the age of this particular prisoner, the first on the list of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), which was put down as 18.

Detainees

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why Richard Acheng Oneke, who was brought


to trial in Kenya in 1952 and acquitted in 1953, is still being imprisoned notwithstanding the finding of not guilty and if he will reconsider this matter and also place in the Library of the House particulars of charges outstanding and evidence in support of them
(2) why ex-Chief of the Kikuyu, Mbyu Koinange, who was brought to trial in 1953 and acquitted without the defence being called upon, is still in detention and has been in detention since before the outbreak of the Mau Mau rising under laws passed subsequent to his arrest; and whether he will reconsider this matter and also place in the Library the charges which have been made and the evidence in support.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member on the 9th March and 26th October, 1955.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Questions raise two entirely different cases which have no connection whatever, one being that of a charge arising out of Mau Mau and the other that of a charge having nothing to do with Mau Mau?
First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Richard Acheng Oneke faced a trial lasting many months, that the court of appeal said that there was no evidence at all against him, that he was then rearrested under the Emergency Regulations which had been passed while he was in prison, that he has been in prison since before the state of emergency was declared, and that, therefore, this Christian pacifist cannot possibly have broken any Emergency Regulations because he was locked up miles from the scene?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-chief of the Kikuyu is over 80 years of age, has been in prison since before the emergency was declared, and that at his trial the court of first instance dismissed the charge without calling on the defence on the ground that there was no evidence against him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As to the latter case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, the circumstances of the chief's detention are very generous, particularly because of his very great age. I am satisfied that there is this in common between the two cases, that it is in the interests of the mass of the people of Kenya as a whole that these persons

should not be prematurely released. I am sure that it is because action of this kind has been taken that the mass of the good people of Kenya can now look forward with confidence to an early better life.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman gets cheers from behind him but few in the country. Is it not a fact that the retention of this man of over 80 years of age who has been declared innocent by a court of law disgusts all decent opinion in Great Britain?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Expenditure

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the estimated expenditure in Kenya during the coming year is to be for the maintenance of law and order, for education, and for social services other than education.

Mr. Hare: For the financial year 1956–57 the Kenya Government have allocated 33.3 per cent. of their estimated total expenditure to the maintenance of law and order, 13 per cent. to education and 6.9 per cent. to social services other than education. These figures include emergency as well as ordinary and development expenditure. If emergency expenditure is excluded, the percentages are 18.9, 16.6 and 8.8 respectively.

Police, Kiambu (Inquiry)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to ensure that the police at Kiambu, Kenya, do not hold persons in custody unlawfully or extort confessions from them, in view of the resident magistrate's judgment, on 23rd May last, in the case of Niwolo Nywili discharged at the preliminary inquiry when accused of killing his employer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A full inquiry into the circumstances of this case has been ordered by the Commissioner of Police.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the magistrate, Mr. C. L. Regan, has stated that the sooner the police at Kiambu understand the judges' rules and apply them, the better? Will


the Secretary of State ensure that that statement is kept before the court of inquiry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is, of course, a very important observation for it to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Situation

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the political situation in Aden.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There have been no significant developments since the visit by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister agree that both the Yemen and Saudi Arabia cast covetous eyes on the Protectorate? Following the statement of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the tribesmen want a clearer statement about policy. We need to make it clear that they are in our care, and that we shall look after them. They want to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing in this matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to have this and every other opportunity to reassure the people of the Colony of Aden and the Protectorate that we have every intention of continuing to discharge our great responsibilities in both areas.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I hope that the Secretary of State is not taking Question No. 34 with Question No. 22. although my Question is on the same lines.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, but I am clad to repeat my assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Constitutional Changes

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take regarding constitutional change in Mauritius following the recent debate in the Legislative Council of this Colony.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall study with interest the record of the debate which has only recently reached me. I trust

that it will be possible to adhere to the timetable for action outlined in my reply to the hon. Member on 13th March.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the voting in favour of his proposal was fifteen to fourteen and that there would have been a tie if Mr. Rougemont had not died before the voting took place? Is he further aware that only four elected members voted in favour of his proposal, and that he flung in eight official members, including three officers of the Crown, to get the voting in his favour on this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The way in which the hon. Member has put the matter is not quite consistent with the facts. I had many discussions with representatives from Mauritius when they were here some time ago. I am convinced that the proposals which we have put forward are most in tune with the interests and the problems of heterogeneous communities such as we have in Mauritius. I ask hon. Members and all in Mauritius as well to look at these proposals as a whole and not to pick out only that part which the Mauritius Labour Party dislikes and that part which the other side dislikes. I am convinced that the more the proposals are studied as a whole, the more they will command support.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE

Constitutional Conference

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the three points that Mr. David Marshall put to him on the Constitution of Singapore after the official breakdown of the London talks and before he left this country for home; and what was his reply.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Details of the three points in question, together with my comments on them, are contained in Appendix 10 to the White Paper on the Singapore Constitutional Conference which was laid before the House on Friday, 1st June.

Mr. Awbery: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the gap between Singapore and the Colonial Office is unbridgeable? If it is not, will he take steps now to build a bridge across it? Is he aware that there is a feeling in Singapore that the conversations should be


renewed? Will he take steps to that end with the new rágime as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have swept no bridge away. The bridge that we patiently built up while the delegation was here, and which nearly all the delegation wanted to cross, is still there.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

West India Regiment

Mr. Leather: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement about the re-formation of the West India Regiment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sufficient West Indian Governments have agreed to participate, and I am now considering the measures needed to re-form the Regiment.

Mr. Leather: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware that the matter has been delayed for a very long time because of legal technicalities, and that the delay has already done real damage to the Regiment's prospects because many of its officers have gone elsewhere and are no longer available? Will my right hon. Friend really press the project forward as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no reason to think that this very fine project has been jeopardised by the regrettable delays. We are pushing on as quickly as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Teachers and Nurses (Minimum Salary)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the minimum salary payable to teachers and nurses in Tanganyika.

Mr. Hare: The minimum basic salary payable to both teachers and nurses in the Government Service is £108 per annum plus a cost of living allowance of 10 per cent. Both classes are on a salary scale rising to £318 per annum subject to certain efficiency tests.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the fact that these

people might not qualify for the franchise under the proposals that are now being discussed in Tanganyika? Does he not think that people such as teachers and nurses should be responsible electors?

Mr. Hare: It is very difficult to answer the hon. Lady's question. It is hard to assess actually how many would qualify. She will know that there are two methods by which they qualify. One is by having education up to standard XII or its equivalent, and the other is having an income of not less than £200 per annum.

Education

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European. Asian and African children in Tanganyika reach standard XII; and what proportion they are of the estimated population of the appropriate age.

Mr. Hare: The numbers of children in standard XII in the present academic year are African 133, Asian 262, European 43 and other non-native, including Goan, 16. The age groups in the latest census are too wide to enable the information requested in the second part of the Question to be provided.

Mrs. White: As this is one of the major qualifications proposed for the franchise in Tanganyika, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the standard is ridiculously high? Should it not be reconsidered?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly listen to what the hon. Lady says, but I would point out that we hope that these numbers will be increased. She will be aware that on 25th April this year a new five-year education plan was announced, and secondary education will benefit under it.

Government Servants (Pay)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons in Government service in Tanganyika are in receipt of remuneration of £200 per annum or more; and how many receive less than this amount, distinguishing between European, Asian, and African employees, respectively.

Mr. Hare: The following are approximate figures:—3,000 Europeans, 1,200 Asians and 1,700 Africans receive remuneration of £200 per annum or


more; no Europeans, 150 Asians and 17,000 Africans receive less than £200 per annum.

Mrs. White: Is not this qualification higher than it ought to be as one of the principal qualifications for the proposed franchise? Ought not the whole matter to be thoroughly reconsidered by the Government of Tanganyika?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that what the hon. Lady has said will be noted, but I think she will agree with me that the proposals which are contemplated are a very considerable step forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Sir John Harding (Talks)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a Statement on his talks with the Governor of Cyprus.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to publish a constitution or other concrete proposals which Her Majesty's Government is willing to offer to the Ethnarchy or to Archbishop Makarios or to any representative Cypriot as a basis for the settlement or the negotiation for a settlement of the dispute in Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The talks which my colleagues and I have been having with Sir John Harding have covered the whole range of major questions involved in Cyprus policy. When these discussions have been completed, I shall make a statement.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that Field Marshal Harding has been reported in the Press as saying that he could not recommend negotiations with Archbishop Makarios again? Is he aware of the dangers of such firm statements being made? Will he make it clear that the policy of the Government is not to make any commitment as to with whom they will or will not negotiate at this stage?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that one must pay very considerable regard to the fact that Field Marshal Sir John Harding has had more dealings with Archbishop Makarios than anybody in this House

and many people outside it. I think it would be very unfortunate if any attempt were made to blame the Field Marshal for any statement that he makes, considering how ready he has shown himself to meet as many people as possible during the period of his official visit here.

Mr. Bevan: Field Marshal Sir John Harding cannot, of course, be blamed for what appears in the public Press, but would it not be undesirable that a servant of the Crown should make any statement concerning the conditions under which negotiations with anybody could be resumed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sir John Harding has had more experience of the difficulty of dealing with Archbishop Makarios than anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Personally, I strongly share the field marshal's scepticism as to the value of such talks.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? The question is: is it not undesirable that a servant of the Crown, who must carry out the policy of the Government, should make any statement about the conditions under which negotiations could be resumed, or with whom they could be resumed? If he does, is it not obvious that if we have any departure which contradicts that statement, he would have to be removed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no conflict or quarrel of any kind with anything that the field marshal has said or done either here or in Cyprus.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will make a statement when the talks are over, may I ask him whether the discussions about the policy for Cyprus are being conducted on the basis that, whenever negotiations are reopened, they wil not be reopened with Archbishop Makarios?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his own experience of these difficult matters, would agree with me that it would be wise to wait until I make my full statement.

Mr. R. Bell: Was not the newspaper report a purported report of a meeting at which Sir John Harding met hon. Members?

Mr. Griffiths: May I press the Secretary of State on this matter? Are we to understand that at this moment the Government do not rule out re-opening negotiations with Archbishop Makarios?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not prepared to make any interim comment of any kind upon this matter.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker? For about ten days I have had on the Order Paper three Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which, for the second time, we have just failed to reach. The effect is that I now have either to lose my opportunity for asking supplementary questions upon what I consider to be important matters, or defer them for another week, making a total of very nearly three weeks. Can you suggest any means by which hon. Members on the back benches can protect themselves against this sort of thing?

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member's dilemma. I think it is very regrettable that today we have been allowed to reach only Question No. 34. That is due entirely to the lack of distinction—which I find it necessary to comment upon from time to time—between Question Time and debate. There is a tendency to pursue these matters further than they can legitimately be pursued at Question Time, and the only way of seeing that Members on the back benches get their full share at Question Time is by limiting the number and length of supplementary questions by every Member and trying to get through the list. It will need to be a co-operative effort if we are to get through more Questions.

Mr. Donnelly: Last week we had one Question answered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and this week we have managed to have 14 answered, although the right hon. Gentleman started at No. 19. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to the whole question of the problem of Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies? A very large number of Questions are asked of him, and his responsibilities are very wide. There is a real

problem in relation to the control of this House upon that Department.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will exercise more control over Departments if they ask fewer and shorter supplementary questions.

Mr. MACHERIOTIS (DEPORTATION)

Mr. K. Robinson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he has deported Father Kallinikos Macheriotis, the Archimandrite of the Greek Orthodox Church in London, and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): Mr. Kallinikos Macheriotis was born in Cyprus in 1908 and was, therefore, at one time a British subject. He lived in Greece between 1936 and 1951 and acquired Greek nationality by naturalisation in June, 1948. He returned to Cyprus in 1950, where he held the appointment of Archimandrite of the Limassol Metropolis, and in 1952 was allowed to come to the United Kingdom to take up an appointment as the priest in charge of the Greek Orthodox Church at Pratt Street, Camden Town.
Acting under a power of attorney given by Archbishop Makarios on 5th January last, authorising the establishment of a committee for the collection of funds in England "for the Cyprus national struggle", Mr. Macheriotis, as Chairman of the Committee, has taken a leading part in the issue of an appeal for subscriptions directed to the "patriotism and religious feelings" of the recipients of the appeal.
Collections for this purpose have been raised among the community attending the church, which has been used under the auspices of Mr. Macheriotis as a centre for the dissemination of anti-British propaganda. Concern has been expressed by some loyal Cypriots and Greek nationals living in London at the pressure brought to bear upon them.
Her Majesty's Government decided that in the circumstances Mr. Macheriotis should be required to leave this country forthwith. The deportation order was


executed by police officers who called at Mr. Macheriotis' flat at approximately 8 p.m. on Monday evening. He was given every facility to pack and to communicate with his friends before being taken to London Airport, where he embarked for Athens shortly after 1.45 a.m.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that his action—which he has totally failed to justify—has not only further embittered Anglo-Greek relations, but has deeply affronted a religious minority in this country, some thousands of whom are my constituents? Does not he agree that the Cypriot community in London has so far conducted itself with complete propriety and restraint, but that provocative actions of this kind, coupled with the barren policy of the Government in Cyprus itself, might well lead to serious trouble over here?
I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman one or two specific questions. Was Father Kallinikos Macheriotis given any warning that his activities were giving offence to the Home Office, and was he further told that there might be serious consequences? Secondly, can the Home Secretary say why the Greek Embassy did not receive any formal notice of the deportation of a Greek subject, and why no communication was made to Archbishop Theotira, head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Western Europe, whose headquarters are in London?

Major Lloyd-George: Rightly or wrongly, I thought it in our best interests that Mr. Macheriotis should not be allowed to stay longer than necessary to carry out the activities which led to his being asked to leave. Her Majesty's Government are absolutely determined, as far as in their power lies, to see that people in this country, whether British subjects or otherwise, are allowed to go on doing their ordinary day-to-day work free from the kind of thing for which Mr. Macheriotis was responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must answer in my own way. The hon. Member's supplementary was a long one and my answer will be a long answer. Mr. Macheriotis was given permission to come here as a priest, and if he had continued to conduct himself as a priest he would have been here today. It is only because he

indulged in activities entirely outside his functions that he had to go.
I think that is perfectly fair. After all, if a person comes here as a foreigner he is welcome here as long as he behaves himself. The fact is that the church was the centre of anti-British propaganda. I think that it is quite intolerable at this stage—considering what is happening in Cyprus—that people should be using the church to gather money to finance action of this sort.

Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that his firm action in this matter will be applauded throughout the whole of the country? Will he consider the advisability of making it a criminal offence for funds to be collected in this country—by an individual or by an organisation; British or foreign—which are to be transmitted for the benefit of an organisation which is carrying out actions against and murdering British soldiers?

Major Lloyd-George: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for what he has said. I will certainly look into the point which he has raised.

Mr. Bevan: Will the Home Secretary, either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or by means of a White Paper, set out the charges against this priest, so that we might judge the justification for what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has done? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not replied to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). Why did the Minister not inform the Greek Embassy of this action? The fact that he did not must serve to embitter Anglo-Greek relations still further. Further, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware, from his background, that if priests had to eliminate all social and political content from their sermons some of his illustrious countrymen would have been in gaol long ago?

Major Lloyd-George: I probably have as much knowledge of the priests—as he calls them—in my country as the right hon. Gentleman has. I have never had any recollection of any minister appealing for funds for the killing of British soldiers. As for giving a warning to the Greek Embassy, I should have thought it quite unnecessary. A priest coming here to carry out his priestly functions should have confined himself to them.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my first question? He stated that this man was collecting funds for assisting in the murder of British soldiers. Will he please place the evidence before the House?

Major Lloyd-George: I should have thought there was no need to place the evidence before the House and that what is happening to British soldiers in Cyprus was sufficient evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy to read my Answer, he will find there is nothing that it is necessary to add to it because the church to which I referred was where the appeal was made, among other things, quite apart from the anti-British propaganda. This priest was given power of attorney by Archbishop Makarios to collect funds for the Cyprus national struggle. Surely that is sufficient proof of what I said.

Major Wall: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Cypriot community in this country has been subject to increasing pressure from highly paid agents of the Ethnarchy and others, that the majority of the community are loyal and do not want Enosis, which they fear would deprive them of British nationality, and that they are entitled to protection against this type of sedition?

Major Lloyd-George: I endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend says about Cypriots in this country being loyal subjects who object most strongly, as I have been told by some of them, to the pressure being put upon them.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The Home Secretary has made a lot of charges which will shock many people in this House and elsewhere. The daily Press has made a series of rather less responsible charges which are even more shocking. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall ask my question in my own way. I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, first, whether he can say whether one penny of the money collected by this priest ever left the United Kingdom. Secondly, I want to ask him whether he can produce any evidence to show that there was any connection between the activities of this priest and the murder of British Service men in Cyprus. Thirdly, I want to ask him whether he is aware that the deportation of this priest and various other police activities that have recently been affecting

Cypriot friends of mine in London have given the impression to other Cypriots that they are part of a deliberate campaign to intimidate Cypriots who might otherwise be complaining about British Government policy. Finally, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is aware that, however convincing to him the case put before him by the security authorities may be, a great many people are worried by what appears to them to be an arbitrary exercise of authority against those who are thought by most of those who know them well to be harmless and law-abiding citizens?

Major Lloyd-George: I have nothing to add to what I have said. I have made it perfectly clear that the money was collected for the purpose of the Cyprus national struggle—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Where has it gone? Has it gone abroad?

Major Lloyd-George: Never mind where it has gone. It was collected for that purpose.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has it gone?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not prepared to say at the moment. The fact is that it was collected for that purpose.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was not.

Major Lloyd-George: Yes. It was collected—I am quoting:
for the Cyprus national struggle.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That has nothing to do with attempts against British Service men.

Major Lloyd-George: What is the national struggle in Cyprus at the moment? What is going on there? The hon. Gentleman must acquit me of the desire to intimidate. This action was not taken without very careful consideration and a great knowledge of the facts. I cannot repeat more than two things, that the money was collected for the national struggle and that this church was the centre of anti-British propaganda.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gathered from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's original Answer that this money was, so he alleged, collected for anti-British propaganda, but in reply to supplementaries he said there was evidence that it was used to help terrorists who are killing British


troops. In view of the change made in his replies to the supplementaries from his first Answer, may I ask whether he is now prepared to lay before the House the evidence on which he has taken this action? Since Greece is still a friendly ally in N.A.T.O., at what stage did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or his servants discover that this was taking place? Did they have any discussions with or make any representations to the Greek Government, or was the first that the Greek Government knew about the deportation that it had taken place?

Major Lloyd-George: I did not inform the Greek Government for reasons which I think I have made clear. It was not appropriate to give very long notice to this man, because it would have enabled him to continue the work which really made it necessary to send him out of the country. I am quite prepared to put in the Library the document which refers to the collecting of funds for the Cyprus national struggle, because it makes plain what they were doing. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to complain of my touchiness about where the money is going, but, after all, I am supported by a great number of branches of the E.T.U.

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it not a fact that within the privilege of the House the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made serious charges against an individual? That being so, is there not a tradition of this House that those sort of charges should be substantiated? Can we have some substantiation of the charges made by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read;

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Provision for increasing number of members of Court) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

New Clause.—(PROVISION FOR INCREASING NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF COURT.)

(1) The Lord Chancellor may—

(a) after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland by order increase the number of judges of the High Court, the Court of Session or the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland to be nominated under section three of this Act as members of the Court;
(b) with the approval of the Treasury by order increase the maximum number of members of the Court to be appointed under section four of this Act.

(2) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and an order under this section shall be of no effect until it is approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.48 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause fulfils an undertaking which I gave on Amendments moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) during the Committee stage. It was felt by them, and, I think, by other hon. Members of the Committee, that we were tying ourselves a little too narrowly as to the number of members of the Court, and it was suggested that the President of the Board of Trade should have power to increase the numbers. I believe that, on reflection, the Committee will think that the Lord Chancellor is perhaps the more appropriate figure for coming to a conclusion on that matter. This Clause gives him that power subject, quite rightly


I think, to an affirmative Resolution and, in the case of the lay members, to the consent of the Treasury.
I suggest that the Clause meets the undertakings given in Committee and I hope that it will commend itself to this Committee.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I wish to thank the President for this Clause, which completely meets the point I sought to make during our discussions in Committee. I would ask him also to represent to the Lord Chancellor that if there is, as hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel there may be, a delay in proceeding with the business of the Court, it will not wait unduly before exercising the powers conferred by this new Clause. As we on this side of the Committee have already made clear in the deliberations on the Bill, and as I should like to make clear again today, that we want to speed the elimination of the restrictive practices with which the Bill is designed to deal and the effective measures to be taken. This is a step in the direction in which we wish to go.

Mr. Arthur Holt: The Minister is correct in saying that he has met the point in a slightly more flexible way than would have been possible by the Amendment which we put down during Committee stage. We are pleased to welcome and accept this new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(POWER TO REMOVE INSIGNIFICANT AGREEMENTS FROM THE REGISTER.)

(1) The Board of Trade may, upon the representation of the Registrar, give directions authorising him to remove from the register particulars of such agreements of which particulars are for the time being entered therein as appear to the Board to be of no substantial economic significance.
(2) The removal of particulars of an agreement in pursuance of directions under this section shall not affect the operation in relation to the agreement of subsection (2) of section eight of this Act; and where any such agreement is varied as mentioned in that subsection—

(a) the particulars to be furnished thereunder shall include all such particulars as

would be required in the case of an original agreement in the terms of the agreement as varied;
(b) the directions under this section shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the power of the Board of Trade to give further directions thereunder in respect of the agreement as varied.

(3) As soon as practicable after giving directions under this section the Board of Trade shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement containing particulars of the agreements to which the directions relate.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second tme. 
The object of the Clause can be stated very shortly. It is to protect the Registrar. All the way through the deliberations on this Measure I have been concerned that the one danger is that the Registrar might become flooded with a mass of wholly irrelevant details, and if so, he would not be able, nor would the Court be able, to pay attention to the things which really matter. This enables the Board of Trade, on the representation of the Registrar, to remove matters from the Register which are of no economic significance.
There were some provisions in Clause 7 (3) which had, or might have had, this effect. But I agree with the point made during our last debate on the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), that they were too wide. This enables us, on these terms, to remove matters of no economic significance from the Register and thus to ensure that the Court does not have to be troubled with them. I hope that the new Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I understood the President to say that the effect of the words he has now proposed is, at any rate, slightly different from those previously in Clause 7 of the Bill, which he regarded as too wide. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what respect this makes them less wide?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. Under Clause 7 (3) it was possible to ensure that these matters were not called up at all. That is to say, it gave power to the Board of Trade almost to legislate. Here, they are called up, but if they prove to be


of no economic significance, they can be removed from the Register.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWERS OF HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN FURNISHING PARTICULARS.)

(1) If the High Court is satisfied, upon application made by the Registrar, that default has been made in furnishing particulars under section eight of this Act of an agreement which is subject to registration under this Part of this Act, or of any variation or determination of such an agreement, the High Court may—

(a) in any case, authorise the Registrar to treat as particulars duly furnished under the said section eight any document or information in his possession relating to the agreement;
(b) if the application is made against any person party to the agreement, order that person to furnish those particulars to the Registrar within such time as may be specified in the order.


(2) In any case where an order is or could be made against any person under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, and the court is satisfied that the failure of that person to furnish particulars in respect of the agreement was wilful, the court may, in addition to or in lieu of making such an order, make against that person any such order as could be made by the Restrictive Practices Court under subsection (2) of section fifteen of this Act if all restrictions by virtue of which this Part of this Act applies to the agreement were found by that Court to be contrary to the public interest.
(3) An order made by the High Court under the last foregoing subsection may be discharged by the Restrictive Practices Court upon application made under section fifteen of this Act, and shall continue in force until so discharged;
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, for any reference to the High Court there shall be substituted a reference to the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause arises out of a number of discussions during the Committee stage when hon. Members expressed concern about whether we were dealing adequately with those people who showed a wilful refusal to register their agreement. This Clause, together with some consequential Amendments, enables the Court, where there has been a wilful refusal to register, to ban the agreement. The consequential Amendments are, in page 8, line 28; in

page 9, line 14; in page 14, line 34; and in page 17, line 14.
As some hon. Members pointed out, this is an effective way of ensuring that where registration ought to take place it does take place. Some hon. Members may think that it is not perhaps as effective as Amendments which they suggested, but it is a powerful addition to the measures already contained in the Bill. It gives the Court power to ban the arrangement for a two-year period; and only at the end of that period will it be possible for the parties to the agreement to ask, under the normal provisions of Clauses 15 and 16, to have the agreement registered and reinstated. Of course, the Registrar can apply at any time.
As I say, I am not suggesting that this goes as far as some hon. Members would like. I do not wish to reopen the whole question about default in registration, which was debated during the Committee stage. We then discussed other methods, and arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee were widely canvassed. I think that the House as a whole will agree that this is an additional, and I think, a useful weapon in the hands of the Court to deal with what I hope will be few and rare cases where there has been a wilful refusal to register as desired by the Measure as a whole.

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the President is seized of the main point of the criticism we raised on this matter during our discussions in Committee. It seems to me likely that the sort of person who will wilfully refuse to register is a person who is suspicious that such registration would inevitably lead to the banning of his agreement altogether as being contrary to the public interest. If that be so, as I believe it will be in most cases of wilful refusal to register, such a person will lose nothing whatever under this new Clause, or under the Bill as it was previously.
We desired the President to try to provide a deterrent so that people would be at risk in wilfully refusing to register and to disclose information. No doubt such people would be fortified by counsel's opinion, and guidance of that sort, and if they were certain that their agreement would be banned, I believe that the unscrupulous ones would be prepared to run a risk of such slight sanction as might


be imposed it might be that they need only pay the costs—to continue their practices until they were found out.
Although we cannot do much about it at this stage. I hope that the President will consider the matter with a view to making some further provision before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Sometimes one despairs completely of the Minister—

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Do not do that.

Mr. Fienburgh: Sometimes a proposal comes from the other side of the House which is so stupid that one has a feeling of despair, and asks oneself, "Will reason never strike this man at all? "
The point has been ably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). If we tell a man that he must register, and in his assessment the likely consequences of his registration would be that his agreement would be banned, he will say, "Wilfully I will not register. I will get away with things as long as I can." We can say to him, "You are very wicked. You refuse to register, so we are going to ban your agreement." That is in no sense a punishment at all.
May I relate this matter to a homely analogy which I am sure the President will understand? About seven o'clock on a summer evening, when we wish our children to go to bed, we say to them, "Children, come in and go to bed." The children wilfully refuse to register their intention of going to bed. After that, we say to them, "You horrible little brats. If you do not come in and go to bed, we shall punish you. And do you know what we are going to do to you? We are going to send you to bed." The only sanction we can apply is swift application of the hand to the fleshy part of the body below the waist. If the only punishment an offender must fear is that which he knows he will get anyway, we deny ourselves of any power of sanction at all.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to reflect upon this homely. domestic analogy, which even in his stratospheric circles must occur from time to time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has introduced a sanction, although I agree with my hon. Friends that it is the wrong one. There may be default in the supply of information about an agreement which is contrary to the public interest. It is wrong that the penalty for the default should be the same as when the agreement is found to be contrary to the public interest. The sanction is hopelessly misconceived.
It will cut both ways. Where there has been default, yet the Court is satisfied that the agreement is not contrary to the public interest, the Court will be very reluctant to impose the penalty for default. The danger is that the Court, observing that the only penalty available is inappropriate, will decide in its discretion not to impose any penalties.
There is an additional difficulty. Nobody knows upon whom is placed the duty of supplying the information. That is still left in the dark. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated subsequent Amendments by which he proposes to deal with this point, but they go only a very short distance. Parties to agreements which are registrable are told that they may furnish particulars, but nothing more explicit than that is in the Bill. One of the faults in the procedure is that the duty of supplying information is nowhere laid upon any particular shoulders.
A central principle of our system of law is that we do not impose penalties without making quite sure who the culprits are. In respect of that, the Bill is at fault. The sanction is wrong because of its nature and because the Bill nowhere makes clear against whom it is to be applied. I do not want to make a false point. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong and that anywhere in the Bill, as amended, the duty of supplying information is imposed fairly and squarely upon a particular party, I shall be glad to be told where it is to be found. I see no sign of it in the Bill at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (3), to


leave out from "discharged" to "and" and to insert:
upon application made by the person concerned not less than two years from the date on which such order was made".
The President of the Board of Trade referred to consequential Amendments of his. It may be convenient if we can consider them, and also the Government Amendment in Clause 15, page 14, line 39, at the same time as we discuss my Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has put those Amendments on the Paper to meet criticisms that were made in the Committee about the probability of people wilfully disregarding their obligation to register agreements which ought to be registered under the Bill.
As the Bill is conceived, the primary deterrent will be the obligation to register all agreements of a restrictive nature whether contrary to the public interest or not. The Registrar will bring the agreements in turn before the Restrictive Practices Court for adjudication. We pointed out in Committee that it would be relatively easy for someone who feared that a restrictive agreement would be adjudicated upon adversely to take the short cut of declining to register. The proposed new Clause is an attempt to meet that criticism.
I agree that the sanction is not as potent as we would desire, but it is better than none. It places the person who is in doubt whether his agreement is contrary to public policy or not in the position of running the risk, if he wilfully defaults, that the Court may say, "Not only ought the agreement to have been registered but it shall automatically be considered as contrary to the public interest, and it will be banned for a period of two years." I believe that is the intention.
If the intention is carried into effect that may well be an effective sanction. The Amendment has been put down to strengthen it. The operative words of the proposed new Clause are:
If the High Court is satisfied … that the failure of that person to furnish particulars in respect of the agreement was wilful, the court may, in addition to or in lieu of making such an order, make against that person any such order as could be made by the Restrictive Practices Court under subsection (2) of section fifteen of this Act if all restrictions by virtue of which this Part of this Act applies to the agreement were found by that Court to be contrary to the public interest.

When that provision is incorporated it will be clear that in deciding whether or not to ban the agreement in question the High Court will have regard not to the merits of the agreement but merely to the question whether or not there has been wilful default about registering.
The object of the Amendment is to tighten the provisions of the Clause by providing that if the High Court makes such an order the declaration that the agreement is banned shall operate for a minimum period of two years and that at the end of the two years the applicant shall not have the right to go to the Restrictive Practices Court for reexamination of the merits of the agreement but shall be obliged to go back to the High Court itself.
First, as we envisage it, the Restrictive Practices Court will have quite enough work to do once the Bill is passed in dealing with the ordinary run of applications that the Registrar makes to it. We think it would be very unfortunate, therefore, if in addition to its ordinary work the Court were burdened with applications under this new Clause. It seems far more desirable that if anyone wants to make an application, having ex hypothesi made a wilful default in not registering an agreement, he should be obliged to come back to the High Court which made the order. I think there is something inherently of advantage in giving jurisdiction to the High Court as well as to the Restrictive Practices Court.
We do not want to find that the operations of the Restrictive Practices Court are encumbered in dealing with applications of this kind, which might quite well have priority over the more important things with which that Court has to deal. Therefore, the Amendment has been moved with a view to tightening the sanction which the President has introduced.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir Lionel Heald: I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment. Whilst there may be something to be said for discussion as to whether the High Court should have this jurisdiction as well as the Restrictive Practices Court, and that arises later, I think, in connection with certain other Clauses or Amendments and may be


discussed then, I suggest that the provision about "not less than two years" is something which is very undesirable and entirely novel.
We do not have minimum penalties in this country; we have a maximum penalty and the court is given discretion as to what punishment shall be inflicted. The Amendment seems to be merely an attempt to show a great desire to be more firm and drastic but it really becomes vindictive. The proper way to deal with these matters is to leave them to the discretion of the Court, and I hope my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: As I understand it, in the proposed Amendment to Clause 15, page 14, line 39, this unpleasant and vindictive provision, as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) called it. is already part of the scheme put forward by his Government. The observations of the right hon. and learned Member are utterly irrelevant to this Amendment. The only point of the Amendment is to ensure that the application shall be made to the High Court and not to the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Jay: Before the President replies, I should like to press him about the related point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I am sure that the President will agree that there will be only a minority of people who wilfully default on their obligations to register information about these agreements. Nevertheless, none of us wants the Bill to go forward in a form which would enable some people—and perhaps even tempt others—to refrain from registration on the ground that they did not believe anything very dreadful would happen to them if they kept quiet and said nothing.
The whole of the new Clause describes what will happen if there is wilful failure by somebody to furnish information. What still puzzles me—we raised this point in Committee and do not seem yet to have had a full answer—is whether it is quite certain and clear under the Bill on what individual the obligation to furnish particulars rests. It seems that if there has to be failure in carrying out an obligation there has to be an obligation. If there has to be an obligation there has to be an obligation on somebody. There-

fore, I think it puzzling that the Bill nowhere tells us who that somebody is. Of course, in Clause 8 the obligation to register is laid down, but the words are still in the passive tense. Clause 8 (1) says:
Within the period specified in this section the following particulars shall be furnished to the Registrar….
I speak always as a non-lawyer, but would not someone who did not wish to register an agreement be tempted to argue like this? "All the Bill says is that the agreement has got to be registered. It does not say I have got to register it. Somebody else may register it. Then it will have been registered and, if I fail to do it, I have not committed a breach of the law." I ask this particularly because the Clause speaks of a wilful failure to register and, presumably, one can wilfully fail to do something only if it is quite clear that there is an obligation on one to do it.
Even if this is no more than a doubt, and perhaps a layman's doubt, I still do not quite understand why the Bill should not say that there is an obligation to register on the part of any party to an agreement. If it does say that somewhere and we have overlooked it, we should be glad to know, but I hope that here we are not letting a serious flaw at the root of the Bill slip through.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In reply to the question about who registers the answer is that the obligation is on all but it may be discharged by any. We are going to have a discussion about that on an Amendment to Clause 8. I think perhaps it will be convenient to postpone that question until we reach the Government Amendment to Clause 8, page 8, line 28, to leave out subsections (5) and (6) and to insert:
(5) The particulars required by this section may be furnished by or on behalf of any person who is party to the agreement or, as the case may be, was party thereto immediately before its determination, and where such particulars are duly furnished by or on behalf of any such person the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be complied with on the part of all such persons.
The answer to the example concerning children is that one must first find the children before one puts them to bed. The same problem arises here. For all we may say about people who fail to


register, until someone knows that there is an agreement it is really impossible to take any steps about it. If one knows that then there are a variety of steps which can be taken and which are outlined in various parts of the Bill. We may be doubtful as to which ought to be adopted, but I hope that all hon. Members will agree that this is a useful additional step—namely, that if there is a wilful refusal to register the High Court should have the sanction of being able to say that the agreement will be treated as something which is contrary to the public interest.
We say that there should be provision for the parties to apply at the end of two years for their case to be heard, and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) wants that application to be dealt with by the High Court. I hope that on reflection he will not press that, because it seems to me that if the Court gets an application all it can do is to discharge the order. The matter has to be spelled out rather further. It has to be judged on some test or basis and the only test or basis would be that in Clause 16.
It would have to be decided whether it was or was not against the public interest. That is why as a matter of practice we use here the words "Restrictive Practices Court." That is really the only Court which could be properly seized of the public interest element in this matter. I rather agree with the hon. Member that that Court might well hold that if there was hesitation to register it showed a shrewd suspicion on the part of the parties concerned that the practice was contrary to the public interest. The Restrictive Practices Court might well hold that, but I think the application should go to the Restrictive Practices Court.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I appreciate the point that, if one is going into the merits of the agreement, of course the Restrictive Practices Court is the Court to go before. I appreciate, likewise, that if the High Court were satisfied that the penalty obligation was finished, then the merits come up for consideration and they would have to be dealt with by the Restrictive Practices Court. I appreciate all that.

The important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was that about clogging up the Restrictive Practices Court. We should like to know how the President contemplates that that would work. It is obviously most undesirable that the Court should be hampered in any way by applications made otherwise than through the Registrar. This is a case of an agreement which will not have been operated for two years, and, at the end of two years, under the President's scheme, apparently, the parties to the agreement have the right to go before the Court in circumstances in which, under the scheme of this Bill, it is not contemplated that the penalty should apply to them any longer. Therefore, as it is not contemplated that that penalty should apply, they have a right, since the question involves the rights and liberties of the subject, to be heard by the Court.
There is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which deals with the priority as between the rights of the parties and the rights of the Registrar. Obviously, anything which affects the President's scheme for the Registrar deciding the priorities is most undesirable. That is a practical consideration put by my hon. Friend to which we should like an answer.
The second point is one of logic rather than of the practice and practical application of the Restrictive Practices Court, but it is not without relevance. The matter comes before the High Court, which imposes a penalty, to run for two years, that the agreement cannot be operated. I have a god deal of sympathy with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), although not with the manner in which he presented it to the House. The point of substance which he made is that here, automatically, if the applicant fails to furnish the particulars, there is a penalty for two years. Obviously, the Court may hesitate to impose a penalty for two years. We should prefer an automatic penalty, but the right hon. Gentleman has not adopted that course. He has given the Court a discretion. The penalty is to operate for two years, and, at the end of that period, it is to cease to operate, from the practical point of view, because the party to the agreement can then make an


application to the Restrictive Practices Court.
Here we have a provision for a penalty which is, willy-nilly, for two years. That is an extraordinary provision. If we are dealing with a penalty at all and dealing with it from the penalising aspect—and it is only because of that aspect that this Clause exists at all—it is as a penalty that it is imposed, and it should be the High Court which should deal with that aspect. There may be practical difficulties and considerations from the point of view of the parties to the agreement in the sense that they may want to know whether the agreement will be valid or invalid. It is for their convenience to know that, but that applies also when the penalty is first imposed, because, on any showing, they will have the agreement suspended for two years. That argument, although I recognise that it exists, does not apply here, because it is not a logical or reasonable argument on the footing on which the President has presented the Clause to the House.
Therefore, for the practical reason put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East—namely, clogging up the Restrictive Practices Court—and also for the reason that this penalty should be dealt with in the way I have suggested, this matter is one for the High Court and not for the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I may have the leave of the House, may I say that I will look at the argument which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has just addressed to the House and will consider it, but I should like to make the points which we had in mind about this.
Let us consider that there has been a wilful default—we agree this will probably be a rare case—and the High Court says that for a period of two years this agreement will be ruled out. The parties may then wish to go back to the Registrar. If they go to the High Court only, clearly no decision on the merits of their case or of the agreement can be made, but it is arguable that one could go, first of all, back to the High Court and have the order discharged. and then come back to the Restrictive Practices Court to have the merits discussed under the order determined by the Registrar. I am not saying that that is an impossible way of doing

it, but that there are some advantages in doing it the other way.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that it is not our intention, just because the parties happen to be defaulters, that they should jump the queue with regard to the merits of the case being discussed, which is the substance of the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me. It depends on the condition of the list. If we get a lot of cases like this piling up, it may affect the work of the Restrictive Practices Court when very important cases are coming forward. What is proposed here is that the parties should go back to the Restrictive Practices Court, where, according to the words of the new Clause, an order may be discharged—
upon application made under section fifteen of this Act, and shall continue in force until so discharged.
It is not proposed that they should, as it were, seize some particular place in the lists. What the Restrictive Practices Court can do is to discharge the order and put them in the same position as anybody else. That is what is intended, and not that they should necessarily be forced to hear, there and then, all the arguments about the merits of any particular case they may be considering.
Therefore, what the application would suggest is that, at any rate, the penalty provision should come to an end. If the Restrictive Practices Court was ready to hear the merits argued at that time, then certainly it could hear them, if the state of the lists was such that it was quite happy to do so. It is not our intention that the Court should be under any obligation to do so, but merely to put the parties in the same position as anybody else, so that when the Registrar calls that case forward the merits of the case can be heard in the normal way.

Mr. Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? Does that mean that a person who had defaulted and had had an order made against him could have that order discharged, and would therefore be allowed to continue the practice before the Court heard the case; or is it the President's intention that, in fact, the Court should not discharge the case until it was ready to continue it? Otherwise, it might be possible for the parties concerned to carry on for another two years, making perhaps


four years from the time when it was originally considered by the Court that the practice was possibly restrictive?

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade to look at this matter a little closer. I have heard what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), and I also heard part of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). There is however a further point here which I should like the President to consider, because I am sure when it is brought to his attention he would wish to do so in this particular context. This is not a case where someone inadvertently overlooks the furnishing of particulars, which are an essential preliminary step to operating this machinery; and not only to the machinery operating, but operating in a field which may be of the greatest importance to the public interest. The agreement involved might therefore be of very great moment to the country.
4.30 p.m.
The President will realise that he has to make the machinery of the new Clause operate in such a way and to such an extent that it will be thought by those concerned better to do what is required of them than not to do it, that is to say, that it is better for them not to take a gamble on this particular obligation and not wilfully—and that is the gravamen of the matter—default in giving the requisite information. It is on that crucial point that I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether the Amendment is not necessary. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade has tried his utmost here to do what is fair and adequate and to fill in an obvious lacuna in the Bill as it stands. I do not think that Clause at present goes far enough, because the whole purpose of the Clause, if it is to be effective at all, is that it should operate as a sanction in case of default.
I ask the President, therefore, to address his mind to whether there is in fact any sanction in' the new Clause as it stands. having regard to the fact that the person who has made a wilful—that is the operative word here—default may, as soon as the order has been made by the court, go back to the court under the new Clause

and get a fresh order, perhaps an order rescinding the previous one. Apart from the costs involved, which may be small or large according to the circumstances, there is no sanction whatsoever. All such a person has to do is on the morrow of the order being made by the court, to go back again to get the court to discharge that order, if he can. Of course he has to satisfy the court.
Apart from that, there is absolutely no sanction which would impress upon the mind of a person who ought to register this information the penal necessity to register it. That seems to be the crucial point. It is not so much that some person. even if there has been a wilful default, may go back to the court and get the court to rescind it. That is not the case with which we are so completely concerned. It may be perfectly proper and nobody may lose anything by the fact that the order is rescinded, but there may still be someone in default about whose default no order has been made. It is upon that person that one wants to impress the sense and the effect of this sanction.
There is, as I see it, no sanction for that purpose in the new Clause, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade therefore to consider whether the Amendments because of that point alone, is not a proper and valuable Amendment which will import into the Clause a sanction which is essential and is not now there.

Sir L. Heald: As my name has been taken in vain by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who accused me of misleading the House, misunderstanding the Bill and everything else, I hope that the House will give me permission to speak again. I thought that I was behaving properly, because I was dealing with the Bill as it stands. The hon. and learned Member made some observations on the assumption that some later Amendment which my right hon. Friend will move had already been accepted. It has not been accepted and, when it comes on, I might have an opportunity of saying something about it.
At the moment there would be an opportunity for the penalty to be restricted, and that is what I want to do. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that under the Amendment the matter would


go to the High Court which has no knowledge of the restrictive practice aspect of the matter and there would be this automatic penalty. He gave good reasons for not accepting it. I should not like anybody to think that I had not read the Bill, or was wasting time. I was doing neither.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With the permission of the House again, I believe that it is better for this application to discharge an order and for the merits of the case all to be dealt with in the one court. I think that it will help in practice and be a more convenient way of doing it. It is not our intention that the order should be discharged and the practice revived, without the merits being discussed. The application must be made and the participants in these agreements must wait their turn to get their case heard, according to the arrangement of the order of business and the convenience of the Registrar in working out the order in which these cases should come forward. In fact, I do not think that there

will be any practical difficulty about it, but I will give an undertaking that the questions which have been raised from both sides of the House will be considered to see whether this is a practical and working arrangement. If adjustments have to be made, they can be made in another place.

Mr. E. Fletcher: By leave of the House, I have listened very carefully to what the President of the Board of Trade has said, and the debate has shown that there is here a very real problem. I appreciate that he has said that he will consider it, but I think that the position he has taken up is illogical and impracticable. Since this is the last occasion we shall have of expressing our opinion, I think that we must register our views by dividing the House.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 199.

Division No.214.]
AYES
[4.38 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Godber, J. B.


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gower, H. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Green, A.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimond, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Speltthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Ashton, H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Cunningham, Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Barber, Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)


Barter, John
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hay, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Black, C. W.
Eden, Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick amp; L'm'tn)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Body, R. F.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holt, A. F.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Errington, Sir Eric
Hope, Lord John


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fort, R.
Hyde, Montgomery


Bryan, P.
Foster, John
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe amp; Lonsdale)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Freeth, D. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Campbell, Sir David
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Carr, Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Glover, D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)




Joseph, Sir Keith
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Keegan, D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerr, H. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Kimball, M.
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kirk, P. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Ch'ch)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lambton, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Leather, E. H. C.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Leburn, W. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Partridge, E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)
Pott, H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


McKibbin, A. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mclaughln, Mrs. P.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ramsden, J. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McLean, Nieil (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wall, Major Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, J. E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maitand, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Webbe, Sir H.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith amp; Border)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Marples, A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mathew, R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Woollam, John Victor


Maude, Angus
Sharples, R. C.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mawby, R. L.
Shepherd, William



Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young



Soames, Capt. C.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deer, G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dodds, N. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Donnelly, D. L.
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn amp; St.Pncs,S.)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Benson, G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bowles, F. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Kenyon, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grey, C. F.
King, Dr. H. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lawson, G. M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Ledger, R. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hale, Leslie
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hastings, S.
Logan, D. G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis
MacColl, J. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
McGhee, H. G.


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
McGovern, J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Holman, P.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch amp; Finsbury)
Holmes, Horace
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cove, W. G.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mahon, Simon


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mallalieu J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.







Mason, Roy
Probert, A. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mayhew, C. P.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Messer, Sir F.
Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mikardo, Ian
Randall, H. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rankin, John
Thornton, E.


Monslow, W.
Redhead, E. C.
Timmons, J.


Moody, A. S.
Reeves, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Reid, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Mort, D. L.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.


Moss, R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Warbey, W. N.


Moyle, A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mulley, F. W.
Ross, William
West, D. G.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Short, E. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wigg, George


Oswald, T.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Owen, W. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Paget, R. T.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Paling, Rt. Hon.W. (Dearne Valley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Snow, J. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woof, R. E.


Parkin, B. T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paton, John
Stones, W. (Consett)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Pearson, A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)



Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sylvester, G. 0.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.


Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWEROF HIGH COURT TO ORDER EXAMINATION ON OATH.)

(1) In any case in which the Registrar has given notice to any person under section eleven of this Act, the High Court may on the application of the Registrar order that person to attend and be examined on oath in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Where an order is made under this section for the attendance and examination of any person-

(a) the court may examine him, either by word of mouth or on written interrogatories, concerning the matters in respect of which the Registrar has given notice to him as aforesaid;
(b) the Registrar shall take part in the examination and for that purpose may be represented by solicitor or counsel; 
(c) the person examined shall answer all such questions as the court may put or allow to be put to him, but may at his own cost employ a solicitor with or without counsel, who shall he at liberty to put to him such questions as the court may deem just for the purpose of enabling him to explain or qualify any answers given by him;
(d) notes on the examination shall be taken down in writing and shall be read over to Or by, and signed by, the person examined, and may thereafter be used in evidence against him;
(e) the court may require the person examined to produce any such particulars, documents or information in his possession or control as may be specified in the notice given by the Registrar as aforesaid.


(3) In the application of this section to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, for any reference to the High Court there shall

be substituted a reference to the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland. —[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We had discussion on this matter in Committee. It is another of the problems about how to discover whether there is an agreement and is the "looking for the children" occupation to which an hon. Member opposite referred earlier. It is an important part of the whole operation whatever is done about them afterwards. The Clause borrows from the Companies Act the procedure, which is used on occasions when there is doubt as to what is happening, of examining the parties upon oath in the High Court. The procedure is fully set out in the Clause and it is not necessary for me to spell it out.
My proposal to the House is that we should use this method as a substitute for the arrangements set out in Clause 11, subsections (3) and (4). Those subsections set out certain provisions about search, which came under proper and adequate scrutiny by all parties in Committee. To tell the truth I have never had much confidence that anything would ever be found with the power of search; I regarded it as largely a waste of time. I am certain that when a prima facie case exists, a proper and orderly examination upon oath would be the best method


of dealing with something which would be caught by the Bill, and I commend these arrangements to the House.

Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to thank the President of the Board of Trade. As he said, many people felt that the original powers in Clause 11, which allow a widespread search of premises, were undesirable. Personally I do not have any objection to the new procedure. I think it is worth saying, however, that even the new procedure is fairly drastic, though I do not think it is any more drastic than is needed, because we are facing a new situation. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Companies Act as a precedent, and I dare say there are other precedents under the proceedings in bankruptcy.
In general, one is not allowed to fish about until one can get people to incriminate themselves—I do not mean in the strict sense—as carrying on a restrictive practice. Normally one is not allowed to put interrogatories before starting an action of any sort. However, as I say, I take no objection to it in this case. I take it that it is necessary to make out a case in the High Court before obtaining authority to do this at all. I should also like to know whether the examination will take place before a master according to the ordinary rules of the High Court.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in thanking the President of the Board of Trade. We took the view in Committee that the search warrant procedure was quite inappropriate and much too drastic. I do not myself share any kind of reservation on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman about this Clause. There is no question of any analogy with ordinary civil actions where interrogatories are administered and so on.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that one did not do this before the action has started, but of course the position is entirely different. Here, according to the President of the Board of Trade, there is a duty imposed upon parties to the agreement to register. Before this Clause can come into operation requiring an examination on oath, first of all there must have been a failure of that duty to

register, which has nothing at all comparable in any civil action, and of course under Clause 11 the Court must be satisfied that the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that the person is in default. Therefore, I am not at all troubled with any kind of analogy with civil actions.
I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has introduced this Clause because it is a great improvement on the search warrant procedure, and we on this side of the House certainly welcome it.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I too would like to thank my right hon. Friend for what seems to me a very great improvement in the Bill. I have only one question that I should like to put to him.
Subsection (2, c) is drawn in very wide terms. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that it is not drawn in such a way as to exclude the ordinary privileges of a witness to refuse to answer any question which might incriminate him or disclose confidential communications with a legal or professional adviser.

Mr. Thorneycroft: With the permission of the House, may I say that I am sure that the ordinary rules of privilege and of refusing to incriminate oneself apply to this as to any other examination in the High Court.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF REGISTRAR.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end to insert:
(3) The Registrar may consult the Law Officers of the Crown through the Treasury Solicitor on any appropriate matter of doubt or difficulty arising in the execution of his duties.
I think there is no doubt that consultation on matters of difficulty should always take place, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir Lionel Heald) has drawn particular attention to this point, and I think it was the view of the Committee that it would be better to state it clearly in the Bill. Matters 'may arise where consultation could fruitfully take place between the


Registrar and the Attorney-General. I am not going to discuss here the question of Crown privilege which raises much wider issues than this—in fact, so much wider that I hope it may be possible to debate them in a wider context than this Measure.
There is no doubt that, quite apart from privilege altogether, and quite detached from that, there may be cases where Government Departments themselves are participating in one way or another in arrangements of this kind. After all, Government Departments sometimes trade. The Post Office, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Works may on occasions be involved in one way or another in arrangements which would be registrable under this Measure, and I think it is the general sense of the House that evidence of the facts about any situation should be given.
I do not think there is any difficulty about this normally. There is nothing to do with privilege in that. I am only using this as an example of the sort of thing which might happen. If there were any difficulty, there would be no reason why the Registrar should not consult with the Attorney-General in a particular case of that character. I use that merely as an illustration of the way that these things might be done. Certainly it is our wish that the full information should always be in front of the court.
However, I am not trying to put that forward as a limiting factor in any way. I think it is right to record in the Bill that if there is any matter of doubt or difficulty, in an appropriate case consultation of this kind should take place and the fact should be recorded as is proposed in this Clause.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's references to cases in which Government Departments might be involved in agreements of this kind. Does he seriously contemplate that where Government Departments are involved in agreements when they might require the advice of the Law Officers, the Registrar, perhaps acting in a different capacity—perhaps against the Government Departments as parties to agreements—should nevertheless consult the Law Officers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman contemplate a conflict of interests resulting in an impossible situation for the Law Officers?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a very good Amendment indeed. I am perfectly certain that what the President of the Board of Trade was doing was to try to illustrate how useful this provision might be, without dogmatising that any one of those cases would in fact come into play.
The whole point really seems to be this. These particular matters relate to the public interest. As the matter stands without the Amendment, it is very doubtful whether we would not put the Registrar and, indeed, the Law Officers into a most invidious position unless it were explicitely stated that it was proper that there should be contact for the purpose of consultations for advice between those two official officers.
According to our canons of justice and our conduct of litigation, it is very doubtful whether it would have been valid and, indeed, proper for the Registrar and the Law Officers to come into contact with each other without it being clearly enacted that it was proper to do so. It must in actual practice be proper because where the public interest is involved and the Registrar is in any doubt, it is right and indeed necessary that there should be this right of consultation available. That is what this Amendment seeks to do, and I am sure the House agrees that we should accept this position.

5.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: I should like to say a word of thanks to my right hon. Friend for bringing this matter forward at this stage. It may be right that I should remind the House that on 11th April this matter was discussed in the House on an Amendment which I then moved. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is not here, because not for the first time he stood shoulder to shoulder almost alone with me like two Athanasii against the world. We achieved very little success. What we pointed out at that time by our Amendment was that it was desirable to have two things. We actually asked there that the case should be presented by the Registrar under the direction of the Attorney-General, and it was pointed out at that time that that was not a desirable thing. I will not go into the discussion. Later, when the matter was discussed on another Clause, my right hon. Friend said that he would reconsider the matter with a view to meeting us in


another way. So far as that part of that Amendment is concerned, he is actually meeting us by this provision that the Registrar may consult the Law Officers, and I have not the slightest doubt that although "may" does not mean "shall", it means in practice "will", because, quite obviously, the Registrar would consult the Attorney-General if he had the opportunity of doing so.
We come to the second part of the Amendment moved then, which was to the effect that it should be the duty of the Treasury Solicitor preparing the case for the Attorney-General to ensure that all the relevant facts and circumstances were before the Court whether in favour of or against the interest of any party to any such agreement.
It was then stated by the Attorney-General that that certainly would be the intention and he thought that it was unnecessary to have any provisions to that effect. We are naturally very glad to hear, although my right hon. Friend has not put anything in the Amendment about it, from him today that that certainly is the intention. Perhaps I may ask him to confirm the position as we understand it, because it is a matter that has caused a certain amount of concern.
One has to remember that the Registrar is the other party to the proceedings apart from the particular industry that is being investigated, and the Registrar, being a new kind of animal, will have no documents or information at all in his possession except the register, and it may very well be that there is information in the hands of Government Departments which would be very valuable to the parties and to the Court. What has been rather troubling some of us is what guarantee there would be that that information would ever be available because, under the ordinary process of discovery, the Registrar would, of course, be acting perfectly properly if he made a list of the documents in his possession. which would consist merely of the register and nothing else.
We want to be quite sure that the Registrar would in fact, if he were asked to do so, and if it were suggested that there was material that might be helpful —and there might very well be—use his

best endeavours to get that from the Departments and that the Departments would not unreasonably withhold any information which they had. Questions may arise about Crown privilege and matters of that kind. I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is a matter to be discussed at another time, and we are very hopeful indeed that there will be an opportunity of discussing that important subject at large very soon.
Meanwhile, I think that the most we can ask of my right hon. Friend, who, I think, has very nearly satisfied us on that already, but not quite, is that we would like to have another word from him about it. Will he say that it will be the business of the Registrar that one of the matters on which he would consult the Attorney-General would be as to whether there was material which could usefully and properly be put at the disposal of the Court by the parties, whichever way it should turn?
I equally would like my right hon. Friend to say—and I have no doubt that it will be the case, and I hope that there will be no difficulty in saying so—that Government Departments if they have material will not unreasonably withhold it. This is quite a serious point, because any of us who has experience of complicated litigation will know that if a party, I do not say wants to be awkward, but if he likes to be strict can say, "I am very sorry, I have no documents on this matter and no power to get them out of anyone else." It really is a matter of machinery, and if we had an assurance of that kind from my right hon. Friend, I myself would feel perfectly happy and also grateful to him for what he is doing.

Mr. E. Fletcher: When I first saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I was disposed to regard it as innocuous, but I was very disturbed by what the President of the Board of Trade said just now in commending it to the House. In fact, his observations threw an entirely new light on the matter, and it is for that reason that I think the House ought to probe it a little before we accept it.
During the Committee stage, we had quite a lengthy discussion on Clause 1 with regard to the proper channel for the appointment of the Registrar and with regard to the whole question of Parliamentary accountability. Amendments were put down and supported on both


sides of the House suggesting that the Registrar's chain of responsibility ought to be to a definite Minister of the Crown in order that the principle of Parliamentary responsibility might be quite clearly understood. Some hon. Members suggested that he should be appointed directly by the President of the Board of Trade, and some suggested that he should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. In fact, to take another example, I thought that he might just as conveniently be appointed by the Home Office, because his functions would be, if not quasi-judicial, concerned with the administration of the law and the responsibility of initiating proceedings in a court comparable with the High Court.
Those Amendments were not accepted, but it seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade has, by putting down this Amendment, sought at any rate to go some way to satisfying, in particular, the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). But what do we now find? I do not regard this as nearly so satisfactory as a Clause saying that the Registrar shall be appointed by and responsible to a Minister of the Crown.
The suggestion now is that he may consult the Law Officers of the Crown through the Treasury Solicitor. The first question that occurs to me on those words is what do they mean. Do they, for example, if those words are incorporated in the Bill, give Members of Parliament the right to put Parliamentary Questions down to the Attorney-General as to whether, on such and such a case, he has been consulted by the Registrar?

Sir L. Heald: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey shakes his head.

Sir L. Heald: I said that they would never be allowed to ask detailed Questions.

Mr. Fletcher: Surely, if Parliament writes into a Bill that the Registrar is to consult the Law Officers of the Crown, it will be competent—and I am not quarrelling with it; I am welcoming it, but we must know where we are, and I am asking the President to confirm it—for Members to ask the Attorney-General whether, as regards a particular matter,

he has been consulted or not. I am not suggesting that the Attorney-General should be asked to report to the House the advice he has given. I think that as the question may quite properly arise whether certain proceedings have been taken or are contemplated or certain groups of agreements are going to be investigated, it would be right for the House to know whether he opinion of the Law Officers has been taken or not.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It seems to me that one question which one needs to ask in the House at any rate, and without any other qualification, is why action has not been taken in connection with a certain agreement. The Registrar may have taken the advice of the Attorney-General. What is the answer that will be given? If the answer be that the Registrar took the advice of the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General advised that the agreement does not constitute a breach of the Act, what is the situation then?

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He will, no doubt, be making his own speech in his own way later on, when he will, if I may say so, to the entertainment, delight, and edification of the House, develop the points which are now troubling him, as they now trouble me; others, no doubt, will arise as we go on. I do not know what the answers will be to hypothetical questions, but we are, at any rate, concerned to know that these questions can be put.
Secondly, what is to be the position of the Treasury Solicitor? He has been introduced here for the first time. I am not clear to whom he is responsible. Is he responsible to the Attorney-General, or to the President of the Board of Trade? Is he a mere conduit pipe? Questions cannot be put to him, obviously, but, presumably, Questions about him and about his functions can be put to some Minister. Here again, I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade; he is going a long way to help us. I only hope that he will go a little further and clarify this matter in our minds, so that we may understand more clearly how we can usefully develop this chain of Parliamentary responsibility, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey and my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) attach so much importance.
There is another aspect of this matter which disturbed me when I heard the President of the Board of Trade speaking. He indicated, no doubt quite rightly, that under this Bill agreements to which Government Departments are a party, or at any rate in which Government Departments are involved, may be registrable. As he quite properly pointed out, in these days Government Departments are very often trading organisations. Even if Government Departments are not trading organisations, there are certain quasi-Government institutions, such as the nationalised boards, which may be involved.
For instance, the Atomic Energy Authority will, presumably, enter into quite a number of agreements which will inevitably contain restrictive provisions. I shall be very surprised if it does not. Some of those agreements may be perfectly proper and necessary for security reasons; some of them may be made with individuals and companies in this country; some of them may be made with individuals and concerns overseas. It is not intended that there should be any discrimination in the matter. There are security provisions, as one knows, which will be observed, but, over and above the security provisions written into the Bill, in the whole field of atomic energy, which is to play such an immense part in our economic and industrial affairs in the next generation, there will inevitably be a whole series of agreements, nothing whatever to do with security, which, as the President recognises, will be registrable, and which will, therefore, subsequently be open to adjudication if necessary.
I was not clear from the remarks of the President what would be the function of the Law Officers of the Crown as regards restrictive agreements which are prima facie registrable. It seems to me there will be a conflict of duty. The primary constitutional duty of the Law Officers of the Crown is to advise and protect the Sovereign, acting through the Ministers of the Crown, and thereby, of course, all the Government Departments. But Government Departments in this country are subject to the law of the land

like any other individual, and if any Department should enter into a restrictive agreement, that agreement will be registrable. It would, accordingly, be the duty of the Registrar to consider whether or not any proceedings should be taken.
Ex hypothesi, there may be an agreement between a company and, shall we say, the Atomic Energy Authority, which is quite unnecessarily restrictive in its application, or an agreement with the Coal Board or some Department of State. Surely, the Law Officers of the Crown are put in a very complicated position in respect of any such agreements if they have, on the one hand, to advise the Crown and, on the other hand, have at the same time to advise the Registrar as to what his duty shall be.
5.15 p.m.
I am not complaining at all that this Amendment should be written into the Bill. I make these observations because it seems to me that, if it is written into the Bill, the consequences of what the President has said will have to be examined. We shall have to consider what our attitude will be. I hope that, on reflection, the President will at least recognise that the points which have emerged in this debate require a good deal of further consideration. It may be necessary to qualify this Amendment, and to consider its application as regards agreements in which Government Departments are involved, either directly or indirectly as parties, or perhaps as sponsors of some commercial activity in which they are directly interested, quite legitimately, in order to further the public interest in one way or another.
My own opinion is that it would be difficult, until this matter has been investigated on the lines I have indicated, for the House to accept this Amendment implicity as it stands. I hope we shall have a considered reply on this matter from the Government.

Mr. Simon: I welcome this Amendment, principally because, to my mind, it recognises the impartial and independent function of the Law Officers in our constitutional system. I cannot, for my own part, see that there is any conflict of duty at all, any more than arises very frequently, I should have thought, in the exercise of the Law Officers' function where there is a conflict of interest


between two Departments. It is a valuable tradition in our system that the Law Offiers do give independent and impartial advice to the Government, irrespective of how it impinges on the interests of particular Departments.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: A conflict of interest can, and does on occasion, arise which raises the question whether it is proper for the Law Officers to give an opinion in such a case. In those circumstances, the Law Officers are careful not to advise if, on the facts, it is obviously not proper that they should do so.

Mr. Simon: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).
The question arose also of the function of Parliament. As I understand it, it has always been held that it is constitutionally undesirable, and, indeed, constitutionally improper, to divulge any advice that the Law Officers have given to the Crown. Very frequently, the question is asked whether the Law Officers have been consulted. Sometimes it is answered. Very often the answer is "Yes". Sometimes there is no answer at all, and one is left to surmise in those cases that, by inadvertence, the Law Officers had not been consulted, and that is why the disaster has occurred. As I understand it, it is the ordinary procedure that one can ask whether the Law Officers have been consulted—and the answer is generaly given—but one cannot find out what opinion has been given.
There is just one other point which I should be grateful to have cleared up by my right hon. Friend. He gave an example of the sort of situation in which this consultation might be necessary and he said—I was very glad to hear him say it—that there could be cases where Government Departments were participating in or were involved in arrangements which would fall within the ambit of the Bill, and that it is his desire and intention that all evidence of the facts in such matters should not be withheld by Government Departments.
I am sure that we all welcome that declaration. My right hon. Friend was not, I take it—and I hope that he will make it explicit—limiting that declaration of his intention merely to cases where Government Departments may be participating in or involved in this arrange-

ment, but it is his intention, generally speaking, that, apart from questions of privilege, evidence of all relevant facts in the possession of all Government Departments should be made available to the parties and to the Court and should not be unreasonably withheld. I should be very grateful to my right hon. Friend if he would specifically deal with that.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With the permission of the House I should first like to say that I am glad that we did put down this Amendment, because if there is any doubt about the matter it is much better that the doubt should be resolved here rather than that it should strike anyone with surprise afterwards. I do not think that it is very startling to say that the Registrar should be free to consult the Attorney-General through the Treasury Solicitor on any appropriate matter of doubt or difficulty. I think it would be very remarkable if he could not.
The Treasury Solicitor is the legal adviser to the Registrar. He acts as solicitor to the Registrar. I have stated that on other occasions but I think it is as well to restate it now. I think that the House generally regards it as a very proper and appropriate arrangement that the Registrar should receive legal advice from an official of such high standing as that. He is, of course, represented in court by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General. I do not suggest that in those circumstances he has to spend all his time consulting the Attorney-General himself. Nevertheless, I think it is right that he should be able to do so.
A great many people can, and no doubt a great many people on rather conflicting sides do sometimes consult the Attorney-General. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) that the Attorney-General very often does have to reconcile within the great orbit of his advice what might sometimes at first sight appear to be inconsistent points of view, to hold the scales fairly, and to give advice as to what the law and practice should be. That is the great task which falls to the Attorney-General in this country and one which will remain with him.
If there is a question of doubt or difficulty as to whether something should be


registered, that is a matter for the High Court. There is provision in the Bill for application to the High Court to resolve such issues. If there is a question as to the order in which particular practices are brought before the Restrictive Practices Court, I think that that is a matter on which Questions could be put to the President of the Board of Trade. I do not know that one would get an altogether satisfactory answer on all occasions, but as the President has power over the order and timing, presumably some Questions in that field would be relevant.
I am not prepared to go beyond the admirable exposition of my hon. and learned Friend as to what Questions can be put to the Attorney-General. I think it has been the experience of most of us to have heard Attorney-Generals of all parties say that consultation has taken place, but I can recall no Attorney-General disclosing what advice was given on such occasions. I am quite certain that no hon. Member would press for that.
So far as the illustration I gave—and I should like to emphasise that it was only an illustration—I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) for raising the point about factual information being given. Of course, nothing that I have said changes the basic provision of the Bill that the onus of proof is laid fairly and squarely on the parties to the agreement. It is for them to make out their case. It is explicit in everything in the Bill that they must produce the evidence to discharge the onus set out in Clauses 15 and 16.
We are also agreed, I think, that we do want the full facts to be brought forward, and in cases where Government Departments can give oral evidence of relevant facts the Court itself—I emphasise, the Court itself—will wish that evidence of that kind should be brought forward. It is certainly my wish that such evidence may be available. I used that merely as one illustration of the type of consultation.

Mr. Hale: When I emerged from my bath this morning I felt, even if I did not look, precisely like Diana Dors the other day. I said "Two pounds—the money is an insult. I shall not go."

After hearing this discussion I am now glad that I changed my mind. The President of the Board of Trade made, I think, one of the most remarkable short speeches I have heard from the Government Front Bench—and that says a lot. He congratulated himself on putting down the Amendment because it provided an opportunity for others to disagree with it. That may be so, but it can apply to almost anything on the Order Paper. Having congratulated himself on finding people who disagreed with it, he concluded his speech without saying whether he was in favour of the Amendment or not. We are still in doubt as to whether or not he is asking the Committee to accept it.
The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) referred to the constitutional position of the Attorney-General. There is no position more unconstitutional than that of the Attorney-General. It is anomalous. It is almost legally atavistic. It has always involved a conflict of duty. It should be abolished, and the duties of legal adviser to the Crown should be separated entirely from the duties of the head of the Bar and the person who conducts litigation in the courts in the name of Her Majesty. But to recognise that there is an obvious conflict is no reason for adding to the conflict.
I must say that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir. L. Heald), with his long experience of the sort of people whom Tory Governments appoint to various offices, took the gloomiest view about the sort of man who would be appointed Registrar. He said that the Registrar would not have any law books or have access to them; or be a member of the legal profession who would normally have at his disposal the services of the Bar or Law Society libraries.

Sir L. Heald: I never mentioned law books.

Mr. Hale: Listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I wondered whether he was sure that the Registrar would be able to read at all, and whether he would not be in need of constant advice on all the duties of his profession.
Speaking a little more seriously—and I certainly think it should be considered seriously—there are two aspects to the matter. The first is whether it is good that the Registrar should have the right


to consult the Attorney-General at all. As I understood the President, he is pretty well satisfied that the Registrar should have that right. The second aspect is whether the President should have the right to write it into the Bill and so give the right hon. Gentleman, probably, the right to refuse to reply to Questions.
In the first place, once statutory sanction is received, it becomes almost obligatory upon the Registrar to consult the Attorney-General in any case of difficulty, because he lays himself open to the gravest criticism if he does not. The moment he makes a "bloomer" and some hon. Member asks a Question, if we have that right, or, if we have not, writes to The Times—if The Times will publish it, and it does not publish much of a controversial nature nowadays—the Registrar is attacked at once.
They will say "You silly fool, what's the use of saying now that you have made a mistake? You could have consulted the Attorney-General." It is one of the cherished traditions of the House that the Attorney-General will give correct advice. This is one of those illusions we preserve �žand perhaps it is as well that we should preserve them—through all the changes of party.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey will recall that Lord Westbury, when Lord Chancellor, having bitterly attacked trustees for their improper conduct of a trust, had handed to him a note signed by him as a young barrister—Mr. Richard Bethell—advising those very trustees to act just as they had done. He was not apparently taken aback, but merely expressed surprise that a young gentleman who could give such bad advice should have advanced so far in his profession.
For the purpose of hypothesis I assume that the Attorney-General, on balance, might be right. We therefore get the Registrar popping along to the Attorney-General's office on every matter of difficulty. Then the hon. and learned Member for Middlesborough, West, if I may use a vulgar expression, "blows the gaff." As he says, we then have the position that if any hon. Member asks a Question, he is told that the Attorney-General has advised on it. If he then asks what that advice was, he is told that it is not the practice to disclose it. There is a

complete cloak on Parliamentary Questions about the Registrar. The Registrar says "I saw the Attorney-General," and the Attorney-General says "My high and distinguished office does not permit me to disclose the advice I gave." Therefore, this Amendment raises the matter of the legal discussion we had about Parliamentary accountability in a great number of cases.
5.30 p.m.
Quite seriously I say to the President that this Registrar's position is already a pretty anomalous one. The President has defended it, and has explained it, and, I think, has made a very good case for something quite new. Lawyers tend to be conservative about the law, and I admit quite frankly to a certain Toryism about legal procedure. One becomes inured to certain practices, and we look with suspicion at innovations. It may be that this is a very good innovation, but it is an already anomalous position.
The Registrar is partly the C.I.D. He has got to issue the original instructions. He has got to examine such particulars as are given. He has got to undertake inquiries and make some report which he can also give to the Court and say, "I have reason to believe that these people have failed to comply with their obligations." This relates to the procedure we were talking about on the last new Clause. Then he is a part of the Court, and then he is the man who decides on prosecutions.
After all, the Attorney-General is the man who normally will appoint counsel. This is going to create a very difficult position. I do not know whether the President has consulted the present Attorney-General on this. I suggest quite seriously that he should. I do not mean by that any discourtesy to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, who speaks as a former Attorney-General with precisely the same authority and who enjoys just as much respect in the House. I am suggesting only that the difference of interest is that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, at his own request, has ceased to exercise those very important duties, and that the occupant of the office, who is still exercising those duties, may well say, "I do not want my duties added to."

Sir L. Heald: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Amendment was moved


without the Attorney-General knowing about it? Is that a serious suggestion, or one of the hon. Member's humorous ones?

Mr. Hale: On the contrary, it is a perfectly serious suggestion. I am just asking. I really should have thought, in view of the fact that we have been almost continuously engaged for some time on various Amendments and new Clauses to this and to the Finance Bill and other Bills, that the President had been very fully engaged. We know that observations have been made recently which suggest that there are some members of the Government who are hardly on terms of communication with one another at all. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey gives me the assurance that he is quite sure that the Attorney-General has been consulted, and I am quite prepared to receive it from him.
The Amendment is open to objection on the principle of the thing, and open to much more serious objection because it is being written into the Bill. I do not believe that the writing into the Bill of the word "may" will help. If the Registrar has the right, and is almost obliged to use it, and if he is obliged to use it, it means that a veil of secrecy will be cast over Parliamentary Questions. The Attorney-General is, after all, in an even more anomalous position. So far as I can see, no human being is going to benefit by this.
The Registrar has at his disposal anyhow, on the payment of the appropriate fees, the advice of the whole of the rest of the Bar. fie can go to any distinguished counsel he likes. He, presumably, will be a distinguished lawyer himself. He is going to appear in the Restrictive Practices Court consisting of distiguished judges. What on earth is the value of having a provision which is open to so many objections and open to the possibility of bringing about a situation which at the moment, however we envisage it, we see clearly to be anomalous and difficult?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The origin of this Amendment is not, of course, in the merits of the proposal itself. That. I think, is a somewhat important consideration in approaching it on its merits. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the

Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) mentioned, its origin was a proposal put forward to ensure that the activities of the Registrar before the court were properly conducted. I am not going to repeat that debate again, but I think it was a fantastic fear, and this Amendment is the legacy of that fear. Therefore, it is not a proposal which was put before the Committee on the Bill in the first place as a proposal which had to be considered on its merits as something desirable to have in the Bill. That is the starting point of thy; approach to this proposal. It is, in fact, a proposal which comes before the House not on its merits but as a sop to some of the back benchers on the Government side.
I say at once, as I did in Committee, that, of course, like the President himself. we all of us on this side of the House are extremely anxious that everything should be properly and adequately conducted, and that, of course, the best possible advice should be available to the Registrar. Therefore, despite the origin of this proposal, we did not feel. I tell the President frankly, any special reservation about this Amendment.
However, I am extremely disturbed, as my hon. Friends have been, at what has emerged in the debate. There was the Crown Privilege point mentioned unfortunately, as perhaps the President now thinks, which had nothing to do with this one way or the other. Therefore, I am not going to spend any time upon that.
I come to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) so forcibly discussed, the position of the Registrar under the Bill. The Registrar under this Bill, as I understand it, is a statutory body appointed by Her Majesty, but certainly not a Government Department in the ordinary sense of the term, because he is not a statutory body responsible to any of the recognised Departments of Government. It is true that the Board of Trade has certain limited statutory powers to give instructions to the Registrar, but the Registrar himself is an independent statutory body with statutory duties and functions given him by the Bill. He is not a Government Department in the ordinary sense.
Therefore, I myself should think—I am not saying this is absolutely right: I have some doubt about it—that the Registrar would not have the right to


consult the Law Officers without having a statutory provision about it. That is certainly my prima facie view of it, and I should like to know what is the Government's view of that. Is it so, or is it not so? I am not complaining that the Attorney-General is not here, because he had no special reason to think that this difficulty would arise now, but the President ought to know, and the House is entitled to know, whether the Government's view is that the Registrar will have the right to consult the Law Officers independently of the provision in this Amendment.
If he has no right, as I am inclined to think, apart from this statutory provision, what we are doing is to insert in the Bill a special provision conferring a power and authority which otherwise would not exist. Therefore, one ought to approach with some concern the question why this extraordinary exception should be made. If the right to consult is there, there is no point in having the Amendment, and it is futile. Therefore, I suggest there is some substance in this Amendment and that it is not a mere tactic to satisfy the concern of back benchers on the Government side.
Therefore, assuming that there is a point of substance and that without the Amendment there would be no power to consult the Attorney-General, we are now approaching the matter on the footing that this special, extraordinary provision is required. What are the justifications for it? When everybody else whom the Registrar could consult are available, why should this provision be made? I have mentioned the other points which lead to the practical difficulty that the President of the Board of Trade must face. It is the difficulty of the conflict of duty between various bodies.
The point has been very rightly made, with respect, by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and others that, of course, the Law Officers advise when there is conflict between Government Departments. When they advise in those cases the matter is resolved, generally speaking,

within the ambit of the Government, but here we have a Registrar who is outside the ambit of the Government altogether and of necessity involved in litigation. Here is the crux of the matter. He is involved of necessity in litigation against a party, part of which might be a Government Department.

The whole basis of the approach to the Bill is litigation. Every agreement registered will be brought before the court. It of necessity involves litigation before the Restrictive Practices Court and the Law Officers will apparently be called upon in this litigation to advise the Registrar on the one side—for there is a right to call upon that advice—whilst a Government Department must be involved on the other side, and not alone but with other parties.

We on this side of the House are not approaching this matter at all in a hostile manner but rather in a friendly way. Before we heard the debate, we did not think that there was a great deal of objection to this provision. It is only in the light of what is contemplated within the ambit of the Amendment and in its effect that I personally feel there is a strong objection to it. There is also the very practical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that if we write something of this kind into the Bill, which says that the Registrar may consult the Law Officers of the Crown there will be a corresponding obligation upon the Law Officers to give advice. And that statutory obligation might impliedly arise in cases where the Registrar is involved in litigation against other Government Departments.

I ask the President of the Board of Trade not to ask now for the Amendment but to consider these very substantial matters. I ask him to withdraw the Amendment now and consider the arguments before the Bill goes to another place. There might then be another opportunity of considering it further in this House at a later stage.

Question put. That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 198.

Division No.215.]
AYES
[5.44 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Ashton, H.


Aitken, W. T.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Atkins, H. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Arbuthnot, John
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Armstrong, C. W.
Balniel, Lord




Barber, Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Barlow, Sir John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Barter, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hay, John
Oakshott, H. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Osborne, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Page, R. G.


Black, C. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Body, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Holt, A. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hope, Lord John
Pitman, I. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braine, B. R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pott, H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, John (Test)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.


Bryan, P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Raikes, Sir Victor


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hyde, Montgomery
Rawlinson, Peter


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, D. L. M.


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Campbell, Sir David
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Carr, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robson-Brown, W.


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Keegan, D.
Sharples, R. C.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Kershaw, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kimball, M.
Soames, Capt. C.


Cunningham, Knox
Kirk, P. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Currie, G. B. H.
Lagden, G. W.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambton, Viscount
Stevens, Geoffrey


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leburn, W. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Teeling, W.


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick amp; L'm'tn)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas,P.B.(Brentford amp; Chiswick)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turner, H. F. L.


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fort, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Foster, John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vosper, D. F.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe amp; Lonsdale)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Freeth, D. K.
MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wall, Major Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mathew, R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith amp; Border)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grimond, J.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Woollam, John Victor


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Cot. R. G.
Mott-Radcliffe, C. E.



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mr. Richard Thompson and




Mr. Wills.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.


Albu, A. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, P.
Paton, John


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Holmes, Horace
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hubbard, T. F.
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Benson, G.
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Reid, William


Blyton, W. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Boardman, H.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Jones,Rt.Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Snow, J. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Sorensen, R, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ledger, R. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Clunie, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. 0.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch amp; Finsbury)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cove, W. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tayor, John (West Lothian)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cronin, J. D.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MoKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, stanley (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fienhurgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W
Mulley, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Winterbottom, Richard


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Yates, V.(Ladywood)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.



Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.



Healey, Denis

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, at beginning insert:
Subject to any order in force under section (Provision for increasing number of members of Court) of this Act".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 3.—(NOMINATION OF JUDGES AS MEMBERS OF COURT.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 6, at beginning insert:
Subject to any order in force under section (Provision for increasing number of members of Court) of this Act".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 4.—(APPOINTMENT OF OTHER MEMBERS OF COURT.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "three" and insert "five".
This Amendment relates to the minimum period of membership of the lay members of the new Court. There was an undertaking given by the Government that they would investigate this question, and it is a matter of disappointment that nothing appears to have been forthcoming from that promised investigation. The real importance of the point is that on this side of the House we thought that if the minimum period of appointment to the Court of a lay member was as short as three years, the consequence would be that to an extent which was very undesirable people would be coming out of industry and out of business and out of commerce to be members of the Court, adjudicating upon matters with which they had business and commercial connections, and then, after so short an interval of time, returning to industry again.
We thought that the consequence of such an activity would be to derogate from the dignity of the Court and from its reputation. Obviously it is of the first importance that the Court should be recognised by all, and especially by all engaged in commerce and trade, as being entirely impartial, and as studying these difficult problems of the public interest in commerce with objective and detached minds. We all want that, and it seems to us that that purpose is endangered by the proposal that so short a period as three years may be the minimum period of membership of the Court.
Therefore, it comes about that on this choice between three years and five there really can be pegged a fairly important issue of principle. It is disappointing that the Government should have reflected upon these matters and not come forward with any proposal to meet the arguments which they have heard. If my recollection does not fail me, we had the impression, when these points were made previously, that they seemed to be carrying some conviction with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. When, with the factors that I have mentioned, there is also taken into account the separate point that there is no express provision in the Bill that the lay members of the

Court shall be full-time members, it seems desirable that the House should take the steps which are open to it, even at this late stage, to ensure that everything is done which can be done to strengthen and improve the status of those lay members.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The hon. Member or Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has referred to the discussions which we had earlier on this point, and has said his recollection was that his arguments on that occasion were carrying conviction —

Mr. Irvine: Seemed to be.

Mr. Walker-Smith: —seemed to be carrying conviction. I am not sure that that is not an overstatement. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman always command attention and, indeed, always provoke reflection and consideration, and so they have done on this occasion. As he said, we gave an undertaking to investigate this matter to see if it would be appropriate to amend the Bill in the sense desired, so as to meet what is after all a common objective, that so far as possible the lay members of the Court should be of the highest possible standing, and should be, and should be seen to be, as impartial and as objective as possible.
6.0 p.m.
The difficulty which we feel about this matter, and the reason we have left the Bill as it is, is that "three" is a minimum figure. I reiterate what was pointed out in the previous proceedings —that it is not intended that it should be a standard figure for the appointment of the lay members of the Court. On the contrary, in the ordinary run of cases it is contemplated that appointment will be for longer than the minimum period of three years.
It is, however, impossible to exclude the possibility that there might be people who are in every way suitable for appointment but who would be unwilling to tie themselves down for as long as five years, for various reasons and not necessarily because of their desire to return to business; it might be their


desire to retire from active life in a shorter period than five years. They might be unwilling to accept service for a minimum period of five years but willing to accept service for three years. It is to meet that exceptional but possibly important case that we prefer to leave the provision as it is drafted.
I ask the hon. Member to believe that it is exalting the point to say that there is an important issue of principle between three years and five years. This is a very narrow point. With that explanation, and with the undertaking that the period of three years is only an exceptional, minimum period, retained for the reasons that I have given, I hope that it will not be considered necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: My recollection is that the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking to consider sympathetically both our proposal to lengthen the period of service and our associated proposal that the lay members of the Court should he full-time and not part-time. We have tabled another Amendment on the latter point, which I agree is more substantial, but it has not been called.
I am bound to say that I am not satisfied with the very slender assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given. After all, these lay members of the Court will be exceedingly important. This is one of the crucial links in the Bill. What the lay members will do, in effect, is to decide far-reaching economic and political questions; that has been fully admitted by both sides of the House. In fact, what the Bill does in economic policy is to substitute the judgment of these at present anonymous persons—we do not know who they will be for the judgment and decision of Parliament. They are to decide very largely what the economic policy of the country will be in future, as affecting the whole of this vast range of restrictive trade agreements.
Of course, we on this side of the House do not think it right that the decision should be made in that way. The more the discussions on the Bill continue, the more we are convinced that the issues which will come before this Court are not justiciable. Nevertheless, if we are to have these lay members and this Court, as we are to have them under the Bill as it stands, their selection is vital. I hope the

President will take note of the fact that one of the most important actions which he will take under the Bill when it becomes law is the choice of individuals to do this job. The public confidence which the Court will demand will very largely depend on that.
So far as we know, these lay members are apparently to be individuals who for a period of not less than three years—and probably for more than three years—will in part of their time make these exceedingly important decisions, although many of them will continue to hold other jobs and in some cases will presumably receive other fees, emoluments or salaries.

Mr. Walker Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says that many of these people will continue to do other jobs. It was made clear in the previous proceedings that that was an exceptional provision related to possible circumstances in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.

Mr. Jay: But surely it may happen. It is not excluded that at any rate some of these members may be doing other work and even receiving other emoluments. That is clear from another Amendment on the Order Paper, which we reach next in which the President takes power to remove them from office if he thinks that their employment or interest may be
incompatible with the functions of a member of the court.
I will not discuss that Amendment now, but it is relevant to our discussion. Under it the President can remove lay members. It therefore appears that they may have other forms of employment.
We feel that that is exceedingly unsatisfactory. If a man is working in industry, whether on the employers' side or on the workers' side, we must admit that he tends to have the philosophy of the producer; and that will tend, perhaps unconsciously, to prejudice him on one side or the other in arriving at a judgment which is intended to hold a balance between producers and consumers. There is bound to be that philosophy.
It therefore seems to us that, even if we cannot go the whole way and make these people whole-time salaried members of the Court, like the other judges—as we think they should be—at least we can make sure that they are not in office for a few years and are then likely to go back to work for some outside employer


or outside interest. It is a fact, which nobody will deny, that if people expect to be working for a certain employer in a few years' time, that tends to colour their minds in the work which they do and the judgment which they make. Some of us were conscious of that when working amongst temporary civil servants as the end of the war approached. I do not think we should like that influence to work too heavily.
It is the tradition in this country that judges should be put entirely beyond any association with any sort of interest, and should be paid entirely by the State on a scale which puts them beyond even the suspicion of any temptation. That is

accepted by all of us. The lay members are fully judges in this case; as the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, they are fully members of the Court. We therefore do not see why they should be in an entirely different position from the judges. They will take exceedingly important decisions. As we see the matter, they will not be placed in a position which will enable them to enjoy the full confidence of the country, as they ought to enjoy it, if the Bill is to work properly.

Question put, That "three" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 259. Noes 195.

Division No.216.]
AYES
[6.9 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hyde, Montgomery


Alport, C. J. M.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Iremonger, T. L.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Duthie, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Arbuthnot, John
Eden,Rt.Hn.Sir A.(Warwick amp; L'm'tn)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Armstrong, C. W.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Ashton, H.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Atkins, H. E.
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Balniel, Lord
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Barlow, Sir John
Fell, A.
Joynson-Hicks. Hon. Sir Lancelot


Barter, John
Finlay, Graeme
Keegan, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fisher, Nigel
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kerr, H. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fort, R.
Kershaw, J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Foster, John
Kimball, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe amp; Lonsdale)
Kirk, P. M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Freeth, D. K.
Lagden, G. W.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Galbraith,Hon. T. G. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Garner-Evans, E H.
Lambton, Viscount


Black, C. W.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Body, R. F.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Leather, E. H. C.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Glover, D.
Leburn, W. G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Godber, J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gower, H R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Braine, B. R.
Green, A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimond, J.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Bryan, P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas, P.B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (SaffronWalden)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Campbell, Sir David
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McKibbin, A. J.


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maddan, Martin


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Crouch, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cunningham, Knox
Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornby, R. P.
Marples, A. E.


Dance, J. C. G.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Mathew, R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, John (Test)
Maude, Angus


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mawby, R. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.





Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robertson, Sir David
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Robinson, Sir Roland(Blackpool, S.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson-Brown, W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Neave, Airey
Roper, Sir Harold
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholls, Harmer
Schofield Lt.-Col. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'h'th E. amp; Chr'ch)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sharpies, R. C.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian(Hendon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Osborne, C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Page, R. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Partridge, E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith amp; Border)


Pilkingon, Capt R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland. S.)


Pitman, I, J.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Pott, H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Hon. R.


Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woollam, John Victor


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Teeling, W.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Raikes, Sir Victor
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Ramsden, J. E.
Thompson, Lt-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)
Mr. Barber.


Rawlinson, Peter
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.



Redmayne, M.






NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.


Albu, A. H.
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Mahon, Simon


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Benson, G.
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, Sir F.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, S
Monslow, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.


Boardman, H.
Healey, Denis
Morrison,Rt. Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mort, D. L.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hobson, C. R.
Moss, R.


Bowles, F. G.
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Boyd, T. C.
Holmes, Horace
Mulley, F. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, A. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Padley, W. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch amp; Finsbury)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Probert, A. R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Redhead, E. C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lawson, G. M.
Reeves, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Ledger, R. J.
Reid, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rogers, George (Kensingon, N.)


Fienburgh, W.









Ross, William
Taylor, Gernard (Mansfield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Timmons, J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Richard


Snow, J. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S. P.
Woof, R. E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Stones, W. (Consett)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.



Sylvester, G. 0.
Wheeldon, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, at the end to insert:
or on the ground of any employment or interest which appears to the Lord Chancellor incompatible with the functions of a member of the Court".
The effect of the Amendment is to give the Lord Chancellor power to remove any appointed lay member of the Court if, in his opinion, that member has any employment or interest which is incompatible with his work in the Court.
The matter was touched upon in the course of the discussion on the previous Amendment, when I reminded the House, in an intervention, that the intention is to have, in the case of England, at all events, lay members who have no outside commitments. In regard to Northern Ireland and possibly Scotland, there may not be enough work, as I indicated during the Committee stage, to occupy lay members for the whole of their time, and in those circumstances the obviously convenient, appropriate and economic course would be to appoint members to serve on the Court only from time to time and to pay them accordingly.
At the same time, it is obviously a very important point of principle that there should be no danger of a conflict of interests arising on the part of a lay member who is from time to time sitting as a member of the Restrictive Practices Court. Of course, no member of any court can sit as a member of it if he is directly interested in the subject matter of the action before it. That is clear. However, in the circumstances of the sort of jurisdiction which the Restrictive Practices Court will have, it is desirable to spell out a rather more specific safeguard by reason of the possibility of any employment or interest giving a perhaps less direct bias in regard to the work of the Court.
That is what is sought to be done by giving the Lord Chancellor this rather wide power to determine the membership of any lay appointed member not only on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour, which are at present in the Bill in Clause 4 (2, b), but also on the ground of conflict of interests as expressed in the Amendment.

Mr. Mulley: When this matter was considered in Committee—arising from an Amendment which has not been selected today, concerning full-time members of the Court—the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking that he would consider the whole problem again. I presume that the Amendment with which we are now concerned is the outcome of that consideration. It is a most unsatisfactory outcome, and it is really the most extraordinary provision that I have ever seen proposed for insertion in an Act of Parliament. If the appointed members are to have a status and jurisdiction comparable with that of a High Court judge it is most extraordinary that it should be thought, or even suggested, that in the course of their employment they might be offered other work or have interests which would directly conflict with their judicial functions.
I appreciate that an assurance has been given that English members will be full-time members, and that this point will therefore not arise in their case, but we should be much more satisfied if that provision were written into the Bill. Government Amendments have already been made, writing in assurances which we consider quite unnecessary. In the matter of the Registrar's consultations with the Law Officers, for instance, we thought that they were either unnecessary or that they would be accepted in practice.
Surely, before any member of the Court is appointed inquiries will be made whether or not he has another possibly


conflicting employment or interest. The Government do not appear to recognise the fact that if this procedure is to succeed people must be appointed who have experience of the kind of problems which they will face on the bench. If we obtain the right kind of people, with a proper knowledge of commerce and restrictive practices, it is obvious that they will be unable to pursue their ordinary vocations and also work as part-time judges.
The President himself said that hon. Members on this side of the House sometimes under-estimated the ramifications of restrictive practices in industry and commerce. I am prepared to accept his view that they are very widespread, and if that is so, I cannot see where he is going to find satisfactory part-time people who, in addition to this judicial work, will be able to carry on their normal work or pursue their normal interests. The Parliamentary Secretary rather gave away the point in his reply in Committee, when he suggested that the problem in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be met by appointing retired persons. He was mistaking antiquity for experience.
It is not a matter of great concern to me what happens in Scottish or Northern Ireland courts, but I do not think that Scottish and Northern Ireland Members will want to be fobbed off by having members over the retiring age appointed. especially as in the sphere of commerce and directorships the retiring age is usually rather higher than elsewhere. I understand that the custom among directors is not to retire until one is well over 70 years of age. Are such people the ones whom the Government have in mind to sit as members of the Court in Scotland and Northern Ireland? It is important that we should be satisfied upon this point before we pass from this very unsatisfactory Amendment.
In our view, the amount of money which will be saved by not having full-time members simply because the volume of work will not justify their full-time employment, will not be very much, but the proposal to employ part-time members will undermine the whole principle upon which we believe that these restrictive practices should be considered. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will think again, and a little more deeply, about the ramifications of the policy which the Government seem bent upon, of having part-time

members in Northern Ireland and Scottish courts, thereby saving a small amount of money.
It seems extraordinary that it should have to be written into the Bill that these ladies and gentlemen who may be appointed by the Lord Chancellor must not take employment or have an interest which is incompatible with their function in the Court—which function I consider to be equivalent to that of an ordinary judge. The appointed members of the Court may very well over-rule the High Court judge in a certain matter. It seems extraordinary that we should have to have these words in the Bill. A much more satisfactory way of disposing of the problem would be, as we have suggested before, by appointing full-time members. In our view, that is the only proper way in which the appointed members can discharge this very considerable and distinguished function.

Mr. Grimond: My Scottish blood was a little roused by the possibilities of the Amendment, although I may have misunderstood the point. If so, I apologise in advance to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House for wasting time. I should, however, like a little more information upon one or two points, some of which have been touched upon by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley).
It is true that in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary threw out the suggestion that Scottish members might be appointed upon a part-time basis, but I do not think he gave the Committee the impression that he had decided that that would necessarily be the case. There are many objections to part-time members. The persons who are appointed should be really knowledgeable about industry and, if so, if they were employed part-time they would probably be employed in industry. For that reason alone it is doubtful whether part-time members would be suitable. Secondly, I should like to know whether, at the moment, it is envisaged that English members shall not sit in Scotland, and Scottish members shall not sit in England. One solution of the problem might be to move them across the border occasionally.

Mr. Mulley: The difficulty is that the number of judges and the number of lay members appointed under the Bill will be


such that if appointed members moved across the border we should be left with an unemployed judge. If two Scottish members came to England, two English members would have to stand down, in order that three English judges remained fully employed.

Mr. Grimond: It is rather like having a mixed flock of sheep. I suppose, however, that the judge might be employed upon other business. It would be of advantage if the Parliamentary Secretary could say what he has in mind on that point.
Lastly, I understand that it will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor to remove a Scottish member. I believe the Lord Chancellor can no longer deal with the removal of justices of the peace in Scotland, and I am not quite certain that he should be able to remove a Scottish member either in the event of his misbehaviour or because his other interests conflict with his function as a member of the Court—although that may be an unduly nationalist point.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: By leave of the House, I will deal with the points just raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). First, there is the point as to the position of the Lord Chancellor in the removal of members. The Lord Chancellor, at all events as I understand the matter, is the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom and in that sense his jurisdiction embraces Scotland as well as England. Indeed, if it is of any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the present distinguished incumbent of that office is, of course, himself a Scotsman, albeit he was not a member of the Scottish Bar.
In regard to the question of the members who may not be sitting so continuously as to preclude the possibility of their undertaking other activities, what I said during the Committee stage and what I repeated again today was that it is likely that the Court in Northern Ireland. and possibly the Court in Scotland, may not have enough cases to be constantly in session. I am very glad that, with his customary perspicacity, the hon. Gentleman has not taken that as a slight upon Scotland, as did an hon. Member during the Committee stage. Of

course, if anything, it is a compliment to a country that it should not have sufficient cases with which to occupy a Court full time in investigating.
So far as the lay members are concerned, there is nothing statutory in the Bill requiring the lay members of the Scottish or Northern Ireland Court to be Scotsmen or Northern Irishmen in the sense that there is statutory provision in regard to the judge of the Scottish Court. Nevertheless, I think the House would probably take the view that, in the ordinary way, it is desirable that the lay members sitting in Scotland and Northern Ireland should be Scotsmen or Northern Irishmen, respectively, as the case may be.
If it is not to be done on that basis and if there is not enough work to occupy those two Courts whole time, then the only other method under the Bill that I can see would be to depart from that practice and to have people crossing the border to sit as members of the Scottish Court and crossing the sea to sit as members of the Northern Ireland Court. That is what I had in mind when I said that this method would enable us to meet that principle better. We have given a lot of thought—I say this in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley)—as I promised to do, to this point, and this Amendment is the best practical safeguard that we have been able to evolve which does not trespass upon any other principle which we desire to implement.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park did not seem to appreciate the suggestion which I made during the Committee stage that some of the gentlemen sitting as members of these courts might be people of mature years and experience. I must console myself for that with the commendation which that point of view received from his hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who, during the proceedings in Committee, on 26th April, said:
I am fortified in this argument, I believe, by observations which fell from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion when the Committee last deliberated upon the Bill. He said:"—
that is, I said—
' Indeed, it was always supposed that maturity of years and reflective disposition were an aid to the exercise of the judicial function.' I must be pardoned for expressing my liking for that phrase; it is an agreeable phrase and


all the more agreeable for expressing a truth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1977.]
Therefore, if I do not command the assent of the hon. Gentleman, at least 1 command the assent of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Mulley: I agree with the phrase—it is an excellent Parliamentary phrase—and with what is meant, but what I do not accept is that a person does not reach maturity and wisdom until after the age of 70. In the commercial world many directors retain their directorships after that age. If maturity means, say, the age of 50 plus, 1 would agree, but not over 70, as would be the case if the Minister wants part-time members.

Mr. Walker-Smith: if the hon. Gentleman had found time to refresh his mind a little more fully with the proceeding, during the Committee stage before embarking on this discussion he would have seen that in another part of our debates I attempted some analysis of the relativity of maturity, depending on whether it was in relation to an executive or a judicial function. This is a judicial function, and it is commonly believed that maturity comes a little later in the exercise of judicial functions than in the exercise of executive functions.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, I hope, the age of the English judges.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The age of the English judges has nothing to do with me and with this Bill. Judges of the Court, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the same principle as judges are appointed at the present time. That is the reason why we have provided this safeguard in the Bill in order to meet the perfectly proper point that there should be no possibility of a conflict of interests. That is one of the reasons why we have not been able to make the Amendment, which I must not discuss because it was not selected, which hon. Members opposite would have preferred.
In any event, the phrase "full-time members" is a vague and difficult one, and it would have been difficult to incorporate it into the Bill for that reason. We have done our best to meet the point of principle, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will accept the explanations I have given.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary says that this is the best that the Government can do compatible with the scheme and principles which they have embodied in the Bill We agree, of course, that it is an improvement, and, therefore, we shall not vote against it. But it is a most miserable reflection upon the scheme of the Bill that this is the best that the Government can do compatible with their scheme and their principles.
What we have here are part-time temporary judges who can be appointed for only three years. The requirement of the three years is wanted because, apparently, it is contemplated that the Government may want to appoint as a lay judge somebody within three years of becoming an undesirable member of the Court on account of his age.
The hon. Gentleman referred to age and maturity, and all the rest of it. Of course, it may well be so in the case of somebody who has spent a great part of his life as a judge, but it is entirely different to bring in a person as a judge within three years of incapacity and expect him to exercise judicial functions in those circumstances. It is fantastic. To have judges like these doing work of this importance as full-time members of the Court, in circumstances in which it is necessary to legislate for power to remove them because they may hold part-time jobs incompatible with the work they are doing, is really atrocious.
These lay judges should not be full-time judges of the Court at all; they should be assessors. As we have said already, what we are concerned with here is not really a case which is justiciable, it is not really a matter which should be dealt with by judges. As we have said, it should be dealt with by the Government as a matter of policy. That is the fundamental difference between us in relation to the whole of the judicial part of the Bill. It is for that reason that the Government have to bring in these people as lay members and not as assessors.
The whole thing is self-contradictory. and this provision is a reflection upon the fundamental weakness and self-contradiction of the Bill. But it is the best that the Government can do, compatible with


the main principles which they have embodied in the Bill, and for that reason we cannot oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(AGREEMENTS TO WHICH PART I APPLIES.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from "which" to third "of" in line 27 and to insert:
restrictions are accepted by two or more parties in respect".
It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment were discussed with some other Amendments which are closely inter-related. There is an Amendment in page 4, line 42, to insert subsection (2). Then in page 5, line 29, there is au Amendment which deals with the association point. I think it would be convenient if at the same time we discussed the Amendment to Clause 6, in page 6, line 16, to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words on the Notice Paper. That would enable us to discuss at the same time what we are putting into the Clause and what we are taking out. I think it simpler to do that together. There is also an Opposition Amendment to that proposed Amendment.

Mr. Mulley: The Government Amendment to Clause 6, in page 6, line 16, deals with a different point, and there is also an Amendment to it. It would appear inconvenient to discuss that Amendment with the others.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am prepared to carry the argument up to Clause 6 and deal with the matter in that way.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Perhaps it would be better to take the Amendment to Clause 6 separately.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall be happy to do that.
The object of the Amendments we are now considering is to clarify and tighten Clause 5. The object of that Clause, as hon. Members will recall, is to say which are the types of agreements to which Part I of the Bill applies. None of these Amendments will in any way alter the central purpose which I have expressed on a number of occasions, but they clarify the drafting.
The first thing we do under them is to drop the word "mutual". That word was under considerable fire, I think I can say, during the Committee stage discussions. I would not abandon it altogether in argument, but I must admit that we did hang a great deal upon it. Perhaps it is possible to have different interpretations of that term. At any rate, we drop it and simply say restrictions which are
accepted by two or more parties….
Whether that means precisely the same thing does not matter; it is what we intend to say in the Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt about what that means.

Mr. Jay: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said that "mutual" meant.

Mr. Thorneycroft: At any rate, it is what I intend the Bill to mean. Restrictions are accepted by two or more parties. That is what I intend the Bill to mean and, if I have varied it slightly, I hope that it is for the better.
The second thing we drop are the words in line 26,
carrying on business as aforesaid.
That is, carrying on business in the United Kingdom as appears in the first part of Clause 5. In the Amendment those words drop out. The effect is to ensure that agreements are registrable if two or more of the parties are in the United Kingdom. It is possible that the restrictions may be entered into, not by the parties who are in the United Kingdom, but by parties who are outside the United Kingdom.
If I may give an example—I do not think it a particularly likely one—suppose the British parties to the agreement made a money payment to the other parties. The money payment is not registrable. The foreign parties, in exchange for the money payment, entered into restrictive arrangements not to sell in this country. It has always been our purpose to see that restrictions upon imports into this country were registered. I hope the House will agree with that. They are very important in their effect upon the public as consumers and users in the United Kingdom, and there would be a large loophole in the Bill were arrangements of that kind not registrable and open to registration.
6.45 p.m.
By this redrafting, we ensure that no matter whether the arrangements by the United Kingdom persons were in fact restricted or registrable, if in the agreement as a whole, to which two or more United Kingdom people are parties, there are restrictive arrangements, the agreement should be registrable. The Amendment in page 5, line 29, deals simply with the case of an association, and it ensures that where there is an association in the United Kingdom it is treated the same as two parties in the United Kingdom. That is a problem which has arisen in other connections in the drafting, and I am sure that one would not wish to make an agreement unregistrable simply because two parties joined an association in the United Kingdom.

Mr. E. Fletcher: One point troubles me about this. I appreciate that it is complicated. But can the President say why he rejects the suggestion that if an agreement is made between two parties, one of whom is carrying on business in the United Kingdom and the other outside, that should not be equally registrable?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We have never contemplated that type of agreement as being registrable. I do not wish to use the term "ring" in any technical sense, but here we arc concerned with collective arrangements in restraint of trade. Those are the circumstances with which we have been concerned in this Measure.
There is hardly any arrangement which an individual makes in the conduct of his business which is not in restraint of trade in some way or another—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to complete my sentence. Every contract, or nearly every contract, into which he enters is in restraint of trade. It inhibits him from doing something. I believe, and it is the view of the Government, that if we started to extend these registrations to arrangements made by any individual businessman in the United Kingdom to start with, we should scoop into the net of the Registrar a wholly unmanageable number of arrangements, and, secondly, we do not particularly want to deal with that kind of thing. If, as may sometimes

happen, a single-man business is so preponderant in size as in fact to be a monoply, we think that ought to be dealt with by the Monopolies Commission. But if it is not, we do not particularly wish to deal with such a man. We wish to deal with those cases where two or more persons get together and make an arrangement. That is the essence of the proposals under this Bill.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is, of course, a case which ought to be visualised in this respect. Suppose someone abroad used his position abroad as a jumping-off ground for an agreement to be operated by someone, by a single person, in this country. Would not that be a proper case to be caught by this legislation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Do not let us overestimate what we can do about people who are abroad. Let us remember that we are dealing with the High Court in this country and, therefore, it is axiomatic to these arrangements that, in order to be registrable. there must be at least two persons who are in fact in the United Kingdom. It is necessary that we have them there. But the restrictions here need not be entered into by the person carrying on business in the United Kingdom. It may be that the restrictions in this sense are entered into by the foreign parties to the agreement, and that is the difference—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Gentleman may intervene later. It is easy to get drawn aside in this argument, and I do not wish to give way again.
The restrictions are entered into, or can be entered into, by the foreign parties, and provided there are the two United Kingdom parties to the agreement, then the agreement is a registrable one.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The case of a foreigner entering into two separate agreements in precisely the same terms with two parties in this country would not come within the Bill. There is an obvious loophole, because the foreigner simply makes separate agreements with each party.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose

Mr. Thonneycroft: The hon. and learned Gentleman must forgive me. I


cannot answer two hon. Members at once. We do not cover an arrangement between one British party and one foreign party. No doubt a great number of such arrangements are made. It would be remarkable if it were otherwise in this country, which is much dependent for its livelihood upon international trade. The only cases we seek to cover are those in which there are two United Kingdom participants.
There is only one other point to which I need refer here, concerning the manner in which we seek to clarify Clause 5. Some doubt was expressed in Committee about the type of restrictions: Did they all have to be of the same type, or could they be of different types? Could some participants be retailers and others be suppliers, and the rest of it. Some fairly complex wording was used in order to demonstrate that they should be of different types.
In the Amendment to page 4, line 42, we make it plain by saying:
For the purposes of the foregoing subsection it is immaterial whether any restrictions accepted by parties to an agreement relate to the same or different matters specified in that subsection, or have the same or different effect in relation to any matter so specified, and whether the parties accepting any restrictions carry on the same class or different classes of business.
It is better to spell it out in the clearest terms rather than to rely upon the subtle drafting upon which we were relying at the Committee stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to tauten and strengthen the Clause. I am much indebted to hon. Members on both sides for suggestions, many of which are incorporated in the present draft.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I posed the case to the right hon. Gentleman where abroad was being used as a jumping-off ground by one person in order to exploit an agreement here. It might very well be that that case could be caught by the Monopolies Commission on the other section of their activities. That is why I wanted to qualify what I said.

Mr. Jay: I only want to ask a question as one who raised doubts in the Committee about the value of the word "mutual". Do I understand there is no suggestion in the present form of words that it is relevant to the Bill whether or not the restrictions are accepted by one

party in return for or in consideration of a restriction being accepted by the other party? As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman used "mutual" as referring to the motives in the minds of the people who made the agreement when they made it. Do we understand that the whole matter is now made objective and that the question whether the agreement is registrable has no relevance?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No doubt all agreements are "mutual", but the test here is what is written in the Bill, which has nothing to do with reciprocity. The test is purely objective, whether, in fact, the parties have both entered into restrictions.

Mr. Mulley: I am very pleased that the word "mutual" has been removed. While we must pay close attention to what the right hon. Gentleman says he intends the Bill to mean, I would point out that the judges are not so impressed as we are with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his own words. I recognise that the removal of "mutual" is an improvement, but I am not sure that the words now being inserted may not give rise to more litigation even than "mutual".
I know it is not easy to give off-the-cuff answers, and certainly not legal answers, but I wonder whether one could not get round this particular form of words by having a separate agreement with different retailers, like the oil companies. They have arrangements whereby a garage is tied to sell a particular petrol and oil, and the agreement applies to each particular garage. There is no restriction on the activity of the oil company, yet because they have separate agreements it seems that even under the new words they will be excluded from the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman want that particular vicious practice to continue? I hoped that the new form of words might have been made wide enough to catch that kind of practice. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten us on the matter.

Mr. R. Edwards: I cannot see the point of restricting the Clause to two parties in alliance with some party abroad. In the past, damage to our economy by restriction of goods coming into this country has invariably arisen out


of agreement, not between two parties here, but with one party. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example.
There was an agreement on the priming of ammunition and on supplies to the British Armed Forces. It was signed by one firm in this country, one firm in Germany and one firm in America. The Court cannot deal with the problem of one firm. During the war, the British Purchasing Commission were unable to buy the best method of priming, namely Tetracine, because of the agreement made between American Remington Arms, British Imperial Chemical Industries and the German I. G. Farben Industrie. British Armed Forces in this country and in the Commonwealth could not use that method of priming because of that agreement between the single British firm, the single American firm and the single German firm.
I can give many other examples relating to drugs; for example atabrine, a substitute for quinine. Those were agreements signed, not between two companies in this country, but by one. In each case the company concerned was not a total monopoly and, therefore, would not be subject to the Monopolies Commission.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is not necessary for the company to be a total monopoly. It has to control more than a third of the goods. I think the I.C.I. would fall into that category if it were required for the examination. I am not quarrelling with the perfectly fair argument of the hon. Member, but I am pointing out that it is not necessary for the organisation to be a total monopoly in order to be examined.

Mr. Edwards: I agree, but there could be an agreement similar to the two examples I have given with a relatively small firm. Because it was one firm which had an agreement with a company in another country, that agreement could govern the supply of strategic goods. It might be a medium-sized firm which might not have a monopoly and, therefore, would not be subject to the Court or to the Monopolies Commission. I cannot see why it is necessary in this Clause to insist that the agreement must be between two companies in this country. Why should not the case of one

company being concerned be covered as well? If we want to get at a damaging agreement which prevents important products entering this country, we should make the provision all-embracing to include a single firm as well.

Mr. Basil Nield: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question arising from the Amendment to page 5, line 29. When this Clause was under consideration in Committee, I put to the President the situation in which a trade association consisting of a large number of manufacturers might have an agreement as to common prices, for example, which was binding only on those members who were signatories to the agreement. It seemed to me under the old wording that it was to be deemed that all the members were parties to that agreement, although in truth and in fact it might be that half of them—because they were not signatories—were not bound by the agreement.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether that point was in mind when the Amendment was put down and whether that situation has been dealt with. I ask the question for the reason that it does not seem right that those who in fact are outside such an agreement should by this enactment be deemed to be inside the agreement.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We welcome the Amendments with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned here. They are substantial improvements on what existed before. I regret very much, as all on this side of the House do, that the type of agreements to which my hon. Friends have referred—which are very common and well known as a type of petrol company garage agreement—is not within the ambit of the Bill. That does not affect the Amendments we are discussing. Those Amendments are definitely improvements, and I thank the President for heeding the considerations put before him in Committee. We welcome them, although we could have wished that the ambit of the Bill were wider.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "supplied", to insert "imported".
We had some discussion on this matter in Committee, when the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider it. Our argument was that the word "imported" ought to be inserted after the word "supplied" in line 42 to make it abundantly clear beyond any shadow of doubt that imports were covered.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is determined to see within the ambit of the Bill any agreement which purports to carve up the area in which imports into this country of goods of a particular class as between various importers should come. There are various references in the Bill to exports and imports and to companies trading within the United Kingdom, etc. The President has declined to extend Clause 5 to cover agreements made between two parties, one of whom is carrying on business in the United Kingdom and the other of whom is not. Therefore, we feel that there is room for ambiguity. We urged the matter during the Committee stage, and it was left open for review. This Amendment has accordingly been put down again, and I hope that the President will tell us that he is prepared to accept it.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think there is need for me to add very much to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said, except that the President has at previous stages shown willingness to write words into the Bill when he wanted to make matters abundantly clear. It may well be that the purpose we seek to achieve is already somewhere in the verbiage of the Bill, but we suggest that if this word were inserted here it would be much clearer to the lay public, who will have some need to refer to the Bill and to see which agreements should be registered. Even though it might possibly be superfluous, it would add to clarity if the President could accept the Amendment so cogently moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Of course I am in entire agreement with the purpose which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has, of making sure that any form of restriction on supply would be dealt with. The trouble about adding words is that sometimes, instead

of clarifying the matter, doubt is cast upon it. We feel that that would be the effect here. What we are concerned with here is restriction on supply. I can imagine all sorts of ways in which restrictions on supply, inside or outside this country, could be effective.
To put in the word "imported" brings into one's mind the question of someone deciding to stock goods at a particular moment. A decision not to import might be interpreted as a decision to stock at Calais. If we bring in the question of stocking at Calais, why not bring in stocking at Dover as well? If we have the word "imported" and the additional idea of making registrable a restriction on stocking abroad, by implication that would not include a restriction in this country. It would cast considerable doubt on the registrability—if I may use such a horrid word of some methods of controlling supply within the United Kingdom by which there might be quotas related to where goods were held at a particular time, all of which I think should be registrable because they are all part and parcel of complicated arrangements whereby it is intended that supply should be restricted.
In the circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East will realise that I have looked closely and sympathetically at this proposal with my advisers to see whether in fact it would strengthen the Bill and secure the object which the hon. Member has in mind. I am satisfied that it would not, for reasons which we quite agree are not apparent at first sight, but which were very real when we looked further into this particular drafting point. I am satisfied that it would do damage to the Bill, and in view of this explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: Does the President mean that "supplied" covers "imported" already?

Mr. Fletcher: I am satisfied that the President has looked into this matter very carefully, and in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In line 42, at end insert:
(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection it is immaterial whether any restrictions accepted by parties to an agreement relate to


the same or different matters specified in that subsection, or have the same or different effect in relation to any matter so specified, and whether the parties accepting any restrictions carry on the same class or different classes of business.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, after "and", to insert:
' restriction ' includes any negative obligation, whether absolute or not.(3)".
This is the "To be or not to be" point. There can be no difference between us about the purpose of this Amendment. Plainly, we want to include not only a restriction that is doing something; we want to catch negative restrictions also. I think that almost certainly that type of restriction is included, but we have looked at this matter and have had a certain amount of discussion on how we ought to achieve that purpose. We believe that the tidiest way is to say that "restriction" includes any negative obligation, whether absolute or not, and I think that mops up the whole of the "To be or not to be" point. It is a genuine and honest attempt to meet the Amendments put down by hon. Members, and to have one instead of a large number. I hope that the House will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Jay: When I first read this Amendment, I thought that the President was using some very excellent metaphysical language. It was only when I looked further down the Notice Paper that I discovered that he was substituting the language of Kant and Hegel for that of Shakespeare, which I put forward. In my approach, I rather preferred the language of Shakespeare, and I am beginning to wonder how the right hon. Gentleman would re-write the whole of the speech that begins with the words "To be or not to be" in the type of language which he has now placed before us.
However, I think we have to try to be sure that the Bill means what we intend it to mean, and I take it that the President has no doubt that these rather curious words would cover any agreements not to produce or acquire or process, or do anything of that sort. I do not think that that would immediately jump to one's mind on reading this Amendment, but I take it that the President is satisfied that that is the effect.
Amendment agreed to.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from "matters" to the first "an" in line 14 and insert:
(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection.
I think it would be convenient to consider this Amendment in conjunction with the Amendments in my name to lines 15 and 22. This is not much more than a tidying-up operation, but I think it will obviate a mass of other Amendments which could be put down. It deals with levy arrangements. The effect of the Bill as drafted, as evidenced by the number of Amendments on the Order Paper, is that it would catch far too many levy arrangements for beneficial and charitable purposes, which one does not want to have recorded and debated under the provisions of Clause 16. Indeed levies are raised for common funds of various kinds. What we want to catch is what I would call the punitive levy, under which a producer is told that, if he produces more than a certain amount, at that stage the levy will operate as a penalty on the production, or that the rate of the levy will thereupon be increased. That was the Calico Printers' case.
I am not condemning this process; it is not for me to condemn it. All I am saying is that these are matters which certainly deserve examination in a free society. I am anxious that they should be within the ambit of Clause 5, and I am equally anxious that we should not import on to the register a mass of other arrangements which exist in industry for levies for quite innocent purposes.

Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: May I express my appreciation to the President for having overcome, with considerable ingenuity, a point which appeared to some of us to cause considerable difficulty? We appreciate what he has done, and hope it will meet with success.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 15, leave out from first "payments" to "to" in line 19 and insert:
calculated by reference—(a)".


In line 22, leave out "shall be treated" and insert:
Or
(b) to the quantity of materials acquired or used by him for the purpose of or in the production of any goods or the application of any such process to goods,
being payments calculated, or calculated at an increased rate, in respect of quantities of goods or materials exceeding any quantity specified in or ascertained in accordance with the agreement, shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act".
In line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert:
if the agreement were made between those persons and, where any restriction is accepted thereunder on the part of the association, as if the like restriction were accepted by each of those persons".—[Mr. P. Thornevcroft.]

Clause 6.—(EXCEPTED AGREEMENTS.)

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out from "corporate" to end of line 10.
The President will perhaps recall that, during the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment to exclude inter-connected bodies corporate and persons carrying on business in partnership from this Clause, which contains the agreements which are excepted from registration. We were able accept the explanation which the Government gave for the inclusion—

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but, as I shall want to refer to it in my reply, it would perhaps be convenient to take along with this Amendment the Amendment to line 9 to leave out "persons" and insert "individuals", because the two Amendments are really interrelated.

Mr. Mulley: That would be convenient.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Mulley: We are satisfied that there is a case for excepting agreements between inter-connected bodies corporate because I believe that in order to satisfy that definition only one controlling force in a number of companies may be concerned. After all, they are separate individuals and are trading as separate persons. In the case of individuals carrying on a business in partnership with each other, I cannot envisage what kind of agreements they might have with each other which would fall to be registered

under Clause 5. It seems to me that in the ordinary course of partnership business the individuals concerned would be trading not as individuals but as partners; they would be trading jointly. No question of a restrictive practice of the kind we want to catch under the Bill could arise from their ordinary partnership relations.
For the ordinary purpose of partnership trade, I suggest, to use a phrase popular with the Parliamentary Secretary, that these words are otiose. Since there is no point in putting things in an Act of Parliament which are unnecessary, I suggest that they should be omitted.
The argument has more force even than that, however, because there will be many gentlemen looking for loopholes in the Bill, and it might well be possible that some form of partnership arrangement, under the very loose wording of the Partnership Act, could be arrived at which would permit a certain type of agreement to escape the registration which we desire to see under Clause 5. I think the point has already been taken by the Government to some extent by the Amendment which they have put down to substitute "individuals" for "persons." This is one of the reasons I moved my Amendment in Committee, As the House knows, persons include companies, and the Government were perhaps afraid that there could have been a partnership between a number of companies unless the point had been covered. as it is covered, by their Amendment.
I feel that there is no practical use in this exception and, since it gives rise to the possibility of a loophole, as the Government themselves have found, why not go a stage further, prefer my Amendment and omit the reference to partnership altogether, rather than try to meet the point half-way by the Government's Amendment? I ask the President to think very carefully about this. There will be pressure on the best brains of the Temple and Lincoln's Inn to find a way round the Bill. I suggest that there may be a possibility of a way round in this Clause.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to second the Amendment.
If I may respectfully say so, there is a good deal of force particularly in the latter point of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for


Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). It seems to me that we might have two individuals contemplating the exploitation of some project or another and proposing to enter into an agreement which would be registrable. It might well prove to be contrary to the public interest. It might be thought that their entry into an ad hoc partnership for the purpose provided an all-too-easy getaway. I merely express a suspicion here that my hon. Friend may have pointed to a loophole which I know the President would not for one moment, as a matter of policy, desire to remain in the Bill if, as we suspect, it exists.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The effect of the Amendment would be to make registrable restrictive arrangements entered into by partners if there were two or more of them. It may be said that there are not a lot of these restrictive practices, but undoubtedly there are some. It is quite a common arrangement in a partnership agreement to lay down restrictive arrangements as to the areas in which the partners will carry on business at the end of the partnership.
I am quite certain that it is not the wish of the House to bring all that mass of trivia into the net of the Restrictive Practices Court, to register it and to find ourselves under an obligation solemnly to call it forward in front of the Court. That is not our purpose at all.
I am, however, grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for pointing out a fear which he had. The fact that he pointed it out made us look closely and anxiously at the matter to see that we had not left a loophole. I do not think we have. There is a limit to which anything can be achieved by entering into partnership arrangements. Indeed. I believe that the numbers in a partnership are now limited to 20. I also think that it is important to limit this exception to individuals, because the vast majority of the arrangements with which we are dealing are not the restrictions entered into by individuals but those entered into by companies and firms.
It is a valuable consequence of the hon. Member's Amendment that we seek to delete the word "persons," which would include companies, and to make it clear that we are selling simply to exclude the ordinary partnership agreement between individuals. That does

not go the whole way to meet his point, but I think it should meet a good deal of it and a good many of the fears which he had in this connection.

Mr. Mulley: The President ought to give us an example of the kind of partnership agreement which he thinks would be caught by the Clause. His reference was to areas, but the essence of a partnership is that it should be trading jointly, with the profits being shared. I do not see how an ordinary partnership, which I agree should not come within Clause 5, can fall under Clause 5. It seems to me that there is a possibility of a loophole existing here with no practical advantage.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If there are no examples, at any rate we can say that we are doing no harm. My feeling is that there are examples of restrictive partnerships. I gave a very common example where partners agreed that when the partnership came to an end one would look after the North of England and one would look after the South of England. I do not want that kind of agreement, of which there may be hundreds, registered and argued out in the Court.
To safeguard that, I sought to exclude the partnership, and in order to meet the hon. Member's perfectly proper and cautious fears that we might be opening the door too wide, I have limited the exception to individuals. I think that is the best we can do.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 6, line 9, leave out "persons" and insert "individuals".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) No account shall he taken for the purposes of this Part of this Act of any term of an agreement for the supply of goods, or for the application of any process of manufacture to goods, which relates exclusively to the goods supplied, or to which the process is applied. in pursuance of the agreement:
Provided that where any such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act are accepted as between two or more persons by whom, or two or more person,. to or for whom, goods are to be supplied, or the process applied, in pursuance of the agreement, this subsection shall not apply to those restrictions unless accepted in pursuance of a previous agreement in respect of which particulars have been registered under this Part of this Act.


(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this Part of this Act of restrictions accepted under an agreement for the supply of goods for the purpose of resale, being restrictions accepted—

(a) by the party supplying the goods. in respect of the supply of goods of the same description to other persons for the purpose of resale; or
(b) by the party acquiring the goods, in respect of the sale, or acquisition for sale, of other goods of the same description.

This Amendment links up with the Amendments which we were discussing previously. We were discussing a range of Amendments and a Clause which laid down what should be registrable for the purposes of Part I of the Act. In a series of provisions, not all of which we need discuss now, this Clause lays down the exceptions. The exceptions which we are considering here, spell out, in slightly different terms from those originally used. three types of exception, about one of which some hon. Members opposite think there is some doubt. Indeed, they are moving an Amendment to leave it out.
7.30 p.m.
I will take three forms of exception with which we are here concerned. The first one—and I am putting this in my own language, I know, but that is more intelligible, sometimes, than the Bill—is the ordinary supply agreement between two persons. It may be a contract of sale or, equally, it may be a long-term supply agreement between two persons. That is excluded, and I may say that I hope the House will agree that it should be excluded. If it is not, then no register we can ever have will hold the agreements that would come forward for registration.
I should like to spend just a few moments on the second type of exception, because it is a little complicated and rather important. It refers to the ring. I was anxious to ensure, and I referred to this in Committee, that where there was a ring we should, if possible, examine that ring and not every contract that it entered into. What we really want to have decided is whether that restrictive arrangement between those persons is a good thing or a bad thing. If it is a good thing and in the public interest we have no concern about the arrangement which the ring enters into. At least, we do not

want to examine each and every contract which flows from the restrictions, which will have been argued about during consideration of the merits of the ring itself.
If it is a bad thing, an order ought to be made so that those arrangements cannot be entered into in one contract after another, and we do not take up the time of the Court in dealing with the detailed consequences instead of with the casual arrangement. Therefore, what we here provide for is that the contracts or arrangements which are entered into by a ring shall not be registrable so long as the ring itself is registrable. If the parties do not register the ring then each one of these other arrangements must come forward for registration. There is. therefore, a very strong inducement for those concerned to register their basic agreement.
I hope that the House will agree that that is a sensible course which gets rid of the danger of perhaps missing some of these arrangements, and that it does ensure that what is really the root agreement will be registered, and in due time called forward.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Comprehensive.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Comprehensive, yes. Those are the first two exceptions the ordinary supply arrangement, and the ring arrangement where the root agreement has been registered.
The last exclusion is dealt with in subsection (4), and there is an Amendment to leave that out. That is the sole agency arrangement. It is quite clearly spelled out in the Bill, and there can be no illusions as to what we are seeking to leave out.
We are seeking to leave out from registration the ordinary arrangement, very prevalent in our industrial life, whereby a manufacturer says to a retailer in a town, "I will sell only to you, and you, on your part, will undertake not to stock other suppliers' goods. You will be the sole agent for the Austin motor cars but you will not stock Standard cars "—or whatever the arrangement may be. It is an arrangement which is very deeply interwoven into the commercial life of the United Kingdom. Certainly, if we tried to register those arrangements we should have a vast number and, to tell the truth, we should have to make up our minds in broad principle as to


whether it was right or wrong to have sole agency arrangements.
I am satisfied that such arrangements serve a very useful purpose. They provide a steady outlet for the manufacturer and the specialist who knows and understands the goods of the particular firm etc. At all events, they are widely used over a vast range of manufactures, and I am quite sure that we should exclude them, as we do the sole agency and the other arrangements, from the compass of the Bill.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If there is a sole agency arrangement and the agreement is between two people—and not, therefore, apparently within the contemplation of the collective restriction in Clause 5—what is the necessity for having subsection (4) at all in order to take the arrangement outside the Bill? The very fact that we have subsection (4) indicates that it is an exception to some collective agreement under Clause 5 which would otherwise be registrable. It seems to us that an agency agreement of itself, being merely between two parties, would not be within the collective arrangement mentioned in Clause 5 and, therefore, not registrable. In that case, if subsection (4) is merely a matter of agency arrangement, what is the point in having that subsection at all as an exception?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer is that the ordinary form of sole agency agreement is an agreement by two, persons, both of them entering into restrictions with regard to supply. That is, the manufacturer says, "I will not sell my particular goods to anybody else in Wolverhampton." The agency, the shop, the retailer, in Wolverhampton says, "I will not stock anything except your goods". I do not want to go back to the word "mutual", but those are two persons, both of whom are entering in the same agreement into restrictions of supply or whatever it is under Clause 5. Therefore, unless something is done about it, it would appear that in the ordinary course they would be registrable under Clause 5, and we have to pull them out by means of subsection (4).

Mr. George Darling: I should like to pay a tribute to the clarity of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of what, when I read the new subsections, seemed to be no

more than an incomprehensible slab of legal jargon. I would suggest to the President in all seriousness that where we are dealing with a Bill which will be fought over in the courts—and the application of which when it becomes an Act will depend on legal interpretations in the courts—the clarity of expression used by the right hon. Gentleman ought to appear in the Bill. I am confident that, as they now stand, the words are completely meaningless to an ordinary layman.
As I certainly have no legal training, I can claim to be a layman in these matters and the words used were certainly meaningless to me. I read the proposed new subsections about twenty times and at the end I could not understand at all clearly what the words meant. I am suggesting this quite seriously. We shall be having traders who, especially when seeking exemption for the sole agency arrangements, will want to know what their position is. The Bill should make their position clear without there being any need to get a lot of expensive legal advice. As the Bill stands, no person will be clear as to the meaning of these exemptions.
There is another important point. When the lawyers get to work to try to steer their clients through this exemption procedure the Court will find that there will be a flourishing crop of conflicting interpretations because the Bill is not clear on these matters. We all realise that this has not been a very easy Bill to draft. The Minister has not only had to draft it in the legal language necessary for the Bill to carry out his intentions but has also had to bear in mind that every word, particularly of Part I, will be fought over, perhaps by legal actions in the courts. He has had to keep that consideration in mind.
The proposed subsections (3) and (4) seem to me to be a positive invitation to lawyers to exercise their forensic skill in order to find possible loopholes in this exemption procedure, and, so far as I can see from the very complicated and complex wording of the two subsections, the lawyers will have a mighty fine time. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to say whether this wording can be made simpler so that it can be understood by laymen as well as by lawyers. I should like to know whether it is necessary to have subsection (4) in these terms


in order to carry out what he wishes to do.
I may be wrong, but as I see the matter, it would be possible under the proposed subsection (4) for the petrol company arrangements not only to get through the Court but to be entirely exempt from registration, even if they were borderline cases. It seems to me that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to make absolutely certain that these exclusive arrangements for tied garages and so on would not even be considered by the Registrar to make sure whether they were outside the terms of the Bill.
The original subsection (3) is quite clear. I can understand it. It says, in effect, that if a firm imposes conditions of sale or reaches such an agreement with its customers, provision may be made so that it does not enter into any collusive arrangements with other manufacturers. The right hon. Gentleman intends to scrap that simple provision and to have in its place something which will lead to legal difficulties.
As I read subsection (4), it says that without prejudice to something which no ordinary person can understand, the Registrar must take no account of an agreement between a manufacturer and a wholesaler or a retailer if the manufacturer's conditions of sale are imposed on a number of his customers, provided that the customers accept the conditions laid down by the manufacturer. That may be all right if we are dealing with a case, such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, of the exclusive agency arrangements which motor car manufacturers make with local garages. But, to mention petrol companies again as an example, so long as there is no written collusive agreement, there could be a collusive arrangement between two petrol companies to set up tied garages throughout the country. Both the petrol companies would have identical agreements which they would seek by one means or another to impose on the garages, and the agreement would work out in such a way that the two petrol companies would together be working exclusive arrangements with garages throughout the country.
For instance Shell, B.P. and National Benzole, in their exclusive arrangements,

have identical agreements. I am told that the wording is identical. The tied garages which enter into the arrangement with one company also enter into arrangements with the others. The petrol companies work together in the sense that they have identical agreements, and the brands of petrol of the companies—

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have been trying to follow the hon. Member's argument, but it appears to me that he is anticipating matters a little. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill". It is not until that Question has been disposed of that I can put the Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill" and then the hon. Member's speech would be in order. The Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) could then be called. But we must first get rid of the old words. If the House is agreed that the present subsection (3) should be left out, we can get on.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry if I offended, Mr. Speaker. There is very little more that I want to say. I wanted to make this point about the petrol agreements because it seems to me that, so long as there is no proof of collusive action, it will be possible under the exemption granted here for the petrol companies to make identical arrangements with the garages which would, therefore, have the effect of collusive agreements although, as I say, there may not be proof of that.
We must remember that these exclusive arrangements are not confined to the motor trade. There are exclusive arrangements in the brewing trade, with tied houses for the sale of certain brands of beer. There are arrangements of a somewhat similar kind in the tobacco trade between manufacturers and retailers. There are exclusive arrangements of this kind in the drugs trade, the photographic materials trade, the newspaper distribution business, etc.
It seems to me that if subsection (4) is as widely drawn as I think it is, those arrangements will escape registration. I


am sure that that is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the House. If such agreements are to escape registration because the new subsection is so widely drawn, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again.
Reverting to the first point that I mentioned, I would urge that when dealing with matters of this kind, perhaps involving small retailers who may not be able to obtain a great deal of expensive legal help, it is essential that the provisions of the Bill should be clearly drawn so that laymen can understand them. I cannot believe that it is impossible to reword these provisions so that they can he understood by ordinary people.
For those reasons—first, because of the lack of clarity, and second, because this subsection is so widely drawn that all exclusive trading arrangements will escape registration—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Does the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) intend to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

Mr. E. Fletcher: What I should like to do would he to make some observations on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment proposing to insert new subsections (3) and (4), and then to move my Amendment at the end.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question now is, That those words be there inserted. The hon. Member has got an Amendment to that. It would be more convenient if he would move his Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher: I have no objection to doing so, provided that I shall not thereby be precluded from speaking on the proposed insertion of the new subsections. In other words, I want to make some comments on the proposed addition of the new subsections and then to make some observations on my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would be quite in order in doing that. If he moves his Amendment, he will not exhaust his right to speak on the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out subsection (4).
We are in this position. We have now eliminated from the Bill subsection (3). which during the Committee stage, despite the improvements the President of the Board of Trade tried to make to it, was found objectionable, obnoxious and, I think, unintelligible. The President is now, on reflection, proposing to insert two new subsections. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) just now said. I think the President's remarks were an absolute model of lucidity. For the first time. I understood what he was getting at. His speech was clear and comprehensible. and we understood his object. and, of course, it was, as my hon. Friend said in marked contrast to the verbiage with which his intentions are concealed in the proposed new subsections (3) and (4).
I do not want to debate with my hon. Friend whether the legal jargon could or could not be simplified. I have some sympathy with the draftsmen in trying to put in watertight language the quite simple objectives which the President explained so lucidly, but I fully agree with my hon. Friend that if anybody, lawyer or layman, is to understand this Bill, sooner or later we shall have to have a child's guide explaining what really is intended. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary would prove an admirable author of such an explanatory guide to the Bill, if he were free to undertake that work of authorship.
Coming to the Amendments, we agree with the intentions of the new subsection (3), subject to one reservation which I will make in a moment. We agree that the ordinary straightforward contract for the sale of goods or for the supply of goods over a period should be excluded from registration. I also think, if I understand what is in the President's mind, that when there is a ring and a great many agreements consequential on the existence of a ring, the sensible thing to do is to make the agreements constituting the ring registrable but not to bother with the antennae and the related agreements brought into operation to carry it out.
I listened very attentively to what the President said about subsection (4), which is intended to exclude the sole agency


agreement or the sole agency system. I want to say something about its merits, because the real truth of the matter is this. Some sole agency agreements may be desirable in the public interest, but others may be thoroughly undesirable. The President gave as an illustration the motor car dealer. It may be perfectly legitimate in the public interest for, say, the Morris manufacturer to choose a dealer and say to him, "If you devote your skill and expertise to understanding the mysteries of this particular motor car, you will do a service to all users of my particular brand of motor car" Some other manufacturer of a rival motor car may choose another dealer in the same town and say the same thing to him. This, no doubt, serves very well the interest of the manufacturer, the interest of the dealer and the interest of the public, but, as the President says, we cannot apply that illustration to other commodities.
It would be undesirable for a manufacturer of one brand of chocolate to choose two or three grocers in Wolverhampton and say, "I am only going to sell you my chocolate; you must not stock anyone else's chocolate," and for a rival manufacturer to choose another two or three grocers and say to them the same thing. That would be an intolerable nuisance to the public for this reason. It cannot be said that a dealer in chocolate, as in the case of a dealer in motor cars, requires any particular skill in selling it to the public. Therefore, if we get that kind of sole agency agreement for chocolate and biscuits or tobacco it becomes a public nuisance.
Reference has been made to the case of petrol. We have a system which is growing up of one or two distributors of petrol choosing garages and saying to them, "You can only sell my brands of petrol", whether Esso or Regent or something else. The President has rejected this argument in the case of petrol. I do not understand why. I cannot understand what skill is required in selling one brand of petrol rather than another. When I go to buy petrol all that the supplier has to do is to turn a handle or operate a pump and petrol comes out. I cannot see that that requires any particular skill or that it is any great convenience to the public that at one garage one can get one type of petrol and at

another another type, as compared with the system where one can get whatever petrol one likes at one garage.
That is why we say to the President that there must be a large range of commodities in which sole agency agreements are, to say the least, an intolerable public nuisance. One of the reasons which the President has given for excluding from the obligation to register these sole agency agreements—this is a point he has made in Committee two or three times, and I agree with him to a certain extent—is that he says that we must not clutter up the register with all kinds of agreements, or the whole thing will become unworkable. He has given that excuse for rejecting agreements between two companies, one of whom is inside the United Kingdom and another outside—import and export. He has also given that reason for rejecting the partnership argument and, up to a point, there is validity in it.
At a later stage of the Bill—I do not want to anticipate, but a great many parts of this Bill hang together—we shall be resisting very strongly the President's proposal to dismantle the machinery of the Monopolies Commission. I would not be so alarmed about the exclusion of the sole agency agreement if we could be quite sure that the Monopolies Commission was to be continued in full strength and full virility, so that it could expose evils which we are quite sure will arise from the sole agency agreement. It might well be that that would be a better way of dealing with them and we shall press that argument when we come to Part III of the Bill.
For these reasons, we feel that the entire balance of argument would be in favour of having the sole agency agreement registered and then it would not be very difficult to see in which of the articles the public interest is served, and in which of the articles the sole agency agreement works to the detriment of the public interest. It is for these reasons that we are moving the deletion of subsection (4).

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), in moving the Amendment, seemed to me to broaden very considerably the issues


to which the Amendment itself relates. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept it.
If all these agreements to which subsection (4) relates require to be registrable, I cannot conceive that there will not be so many of them that it will be exceedingly difficult to deal with them. The vast majority of them are, in addition, entirely innocuous agreements, and it is very hard to envisage any agreement which would be caught by subsection (4) which would be of a restrictive character detrimental to the public. The reason for that gives me my second reason for objecting to the deletion of this subsection.
We are here approaching very near indeed to a statutory imposition on the mutual rights of contract between individuals. It is very seldom that two individuals can contract together to the detriment of the public as a whole, and to take the risk of their doing so is a very much better thing in the public interest than to bring under review all contracts of that character. After all, to do so would be a first step towards interfering by statute with the right of parties to contract over a house, in an ordinary common or garden lease, because there is no requirement upon any party to an agency agreement to deal with any particular supplier. There are plenty of suppliers, and there are plenty of potential agents. It is entirely a matter of individual judgment and option whether a particular supplier ties himself to another supplier or not.
I really cannot agree that there is any justification for us to seek to intervene in that type of individual personal contract, which cannot be restrictive in the sense in which we are seeking to protect the public from its effects. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: Even if I had not been up all night, I know quite well that I could never understand this new Clause; but, like other hon. Members, I hang on to the words of the President, which shine like a small glow-worm on a very dark night. I hope he will arrange to lend his services to the Parliamentary draftsmen and ask them to let him see what he can do.
May I try to see whether I understand either his purpose or the effect of the

Amendment if it were accepted. As I understand it, subsection (4) excludes from the Bill an exclusive agreement so long as it affects only one class of goods. First, if there is a company or group of companies which supplies a great variety of goods, that company or group can presumably make an exclusive agreement covering all its goods with a retailer, and it will come under subsection (4). Again, if a petrol company, in agreement with a retailer, says that the retailer must sell only the company's brand of petrol, the company can presumably also make a parallel agreement that the retailer will sell only its brand of oil, but, if the company seeks to exclude other types of goods, then that would be an exclusive agreement, outside this sub-clause and probably would be objectionable to the Court. Is that the right interpretation of subsection (4)?
Secondly, if we pass the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and we strike out subsection (4), we are then left with subsection (3), and even a straightforward exclusive agreement between a garage and a petrol company to sell a particular brand of petrol and no other will be registrable. I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) that that would put an intolerable burden on the Registrar. I take it that that would be the effect of leaving out subsection (4), although even then it would be perfectly possible, under subsection (3) alone, for the Court to find that such an agreement was not objectionable though it would be a practice which would be registrable.
I would like the President to give us a little further light upon the exact effect of subsection (4), and also upon the effect of leaving it out.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I put the difficulty with regard to subsection (4) as I see it? There are two points: first, the President's intention that it should be a sole agency agreement, and second, the question whether subsection (4), as it stands, is in fact limited to sole agency cases.
I will take the second point, the limitation to sole agency cases, first. The subsection provides
Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this part of this Act of restrictions accepted under an agreement for the supply of goods …


There is nothing there which, expressly at any rate, states that the agreement is to be limited as between two individuals, two companies, or two parties. So far, the agreement might include any number of parties.
Let us imagine a case where there is an agreement with a large number of suppliers on the one hand a large number of retailers on the other. The subsection goes on
… for the purpose of re-sale, being restrictions accepted—
(a) by the party supplying the goods…
That is presumably one party.
Let us imagine an agreement, in which there is a large number of suppliers on the one hand and a large number of retailers on the other, setting out the terms in which the parties agreed that party A, party B, and party C severally should sell goods to party X, party Y and party Z. That is an agreement between a large number of suppliers and a large number of retailers, all dealing with the supply of goods by one party, namely the party referred to in paragraph (a) as the "party supplying the goods" The same reasoning applies precisely the other way round to the party acquiring the goods.
Therefore, one would have, within a collective arrangement, a restriction which is obviously within the purpose of the Bill. All one would then have to do to come within subsection (4) and escape the Bill would be to arrange for the agreements for supply to be within the same document as the restrictions which are agreed to be imposed and accepted collectively. It therefore seems to me that this subsection, as it stands, is not limited to sole agency agreements.
It is a matter of construction, and that, obviously, is not the President's intention. What we should ask him to do, in that case, is to look at the provision with a view to making quite certain that it is limited to sole agency cases.
I now pass to the second point, as to the virtues or demerits of having the exception of sole agency cases. Let me take the petrol case first. As I understand it, the petrol agreement is a case in which the restrictions are virtually, at any rate for all practical purposes, on one side. I dare say there may be restriction which work mutually in certain

cases, but, generally speaking, they are agreements in which the petrol company imposes restrictions and the garage proprietor accepts them, without any corresponding restrictions accepted by the petrol company from the garage proprietor. If that is so, it would seem to me that that would be outside Clause 5 altogether.
Secondly, there are cases in which there are mutual—if I might use that atrocious word—restrictions accepted by one party and the other party. There may be sole agency cases of that kind which are very desirable and to which there is no objection. Equally, there might be cases which are very pernicious. My hon. Friend referred to the chocolate case as contrasted with the sale of motor cars.
What makes them pernicious is when a stage is reached where there is a big demand in several places for small scale goods. It is then an atrocious trespass upon the convenience of the public not to have the goods available. To take the case of the petrol companies again, it is most inconvenient and, as far as one can judge, most uneconomic to have sole agency arrangements.
Clearly, there are instances where something ought to be done about sole agency cases. It should not be beyond the capacity of the Government to provide an indication of a line which would exclude those which are not pernicious and include those which are. There should not be much difficulty in providing a test based on the desirability of the general availability, or skill in the sale, or big articles which are comparatively rarely sold although there is no perniciousness in the arrangements as in the case of small articles which are generally sold and generally required.
Something ought to be done about the petrol company cases, and the stranglehold on newspaper sales. There is no such provision in the Bill. I am not pressing that all sole agency cases should be brought within the Bill and be registered, but on that point of principle our case is that there are considerable numbers of sole agencies which are within the vice of the Bill, and they certainly should be registered. We hope the Government will consider that course.

Mr. Reader Harris (Heston and Isle-worth): I should also like to put a point


to the President of the Board of Trade. Subsection (4) is designed to cut out the sole agency agreement. Petrol companies have been quoted. It may or may not be desirable, but it is arguable that it is desirable that a petrol company which gives certain things to and does certain things for a garage might be entitled to say "You shall sell only my petrol" Such an agreement is excluded by the Clause.
What I am worried about is what happens if a petrol company says not only "You may sell only my petrol", but, "You may sell only a certain make of tyre, battery or other accessory". As I understand the subsection, that sort of agreement would not be excluded. The subsection says:
… no account shall be taken … of restrictions accepted under an agreement for the supply of goods for the purpose of resale, being restrictions accepted by the party supplying the goods …
A petrol company supplies only petrol and not tyres, batteries and other accessories. It seems to me that such an agreement would have to be registered. I am all for it. I should like to see such agreements registered because I believe they are contracts in restraint of trade to a very much greater extent than many restraint agreements. I support the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on that point.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I welcome the unanimity in the House on this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) is right. The reference is specifically to goods of the same description. There is no question of any of the arrangements whereby one tries to link up petrol with tyres, sparking plugs and so on being able to escape from the Clause.
I hesitate to blur what I understand was the accidental clarity with which I expressed myself a few moments ago, by attempting to repeat what I gather I must re-read afterwards to enable even me to understand with absolute clearness what the Clause does.
Let us be clear about one thing first of all. There is absolutely nothing to prevent an individual manufacturer from doing what he wants about his supply. It is worth recalling that. If one is a chocolate manufacturer and wishes to

deal with one shop only in the United Kingdom, there is nothing in the Bill or that could be put in the Bill, so far as one can see, which would prevent one from doing so. A man can do what he wants with his own in the ordinary course of events. The Bill is concerned only with people joined together on what we are now agreed are—I use the word for shorthand purposes only — mutual arrangements to restrict supply in one form or another.
I agree that if we attempted to bring into the net of the Restrictive Practices Court sole agency arrangements we should be placing upon it an altogether impossible burden. It is all very well to say that it should be possible to draw a line between the good and the bad. We must be clear what the arrangements are. They are only commercial arrangements in which manufacturers and retailers agree together that their commercial interests would be served by having exclusive supplies from one another. Such arrangements are adopted over an enormous range of industry. If I were asked to do so, I do not know how I should distinguish between those which were good and those which were bad, but I believe that if one gets supply tied up thus over a very large area in a quasi-monopolistic way there is a case for inquiry.
Perhaps I might take an example which recalls some past days of mine when I was a barrister. Mitchell and Butler provides excellent beer in large quantities in the Birmingham area. The firm may even supply a third of the total amount of beer supplied in that area. In these circumstances, I dare say that, technically at any rate, one could, if one wished to do so, refer its tied houses to the Monopolies Commission and inquire about their effect on the public.
However, I do not want to call up all agreements between a brewery and a tied house, between a motor car firm and its agencies in a certain town, or between manufacturers and retailers which are simply carrying out the very ordinary form of sole agency arrangements. I should not want to say to the Registrar "Put it on the register", or "Undertake the obligation which you have to call the agreement before the Court", and to the Court "Please sort out all this for us".

Mr. Jay: Was the President saying that it would be possible to refer to the Monopolies Commission under the latter part of the Bill the agreements which the few great petrol companies have with garages?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That would be so if their control extended to more than one-third of the goods for sale. Let me assume for the purpose of my answer—if the assumption is wrong, the answer does not stand—that a great petrol company controls, at any rate in an area of the United Kingdom, and probably over the whole of it, more than one-third of the articles or goods in question. In that case, it is plain from the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, that it would be referable to the Monopolies Commission.
When it got there, the petrol company would argue, its case that a limitation on the sources of distribution from the point of view of refilling the pumps and so forth was thoroughly advantageous com-

pared with distributing petrol in penny packets at hundreds of filling stations. It would make out its case, the argument no doubt being on those lines, in front of the Monopolies Commission. But it would be done in front of the Monopolies Commission. What I do not want to do is to alter a sound provision in the Bill, namely, not to bring into the net of these arrangements the whole of the sole agency system, just because, at the moment, there happens to be a certain amount written about petrol companies. I hope that the House will not press me to do so. I think that it is right to exclude them. Where they are in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic situation adequate arrangements exist for dealing with them, and I hope that the House will be content to let the matter proceed upon that basis.

Question put, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 190.

Division No.217.]
AYES
[8.21 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr.P.G




Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock., Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Arbuthnot, John
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Ashton, H.
Cunningham, Knox
Hay, John


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Baldwin, A. E.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, W. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj.W. W.


Barber, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duthie, W. S.
Holt, A. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA (Warwick amp; L'm'tn)
Hornby, R. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, John (Test)


Bidgood, J. C.
Erroll, E. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fell, A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)


Black, C. W.
Fisher, Nigel
Hyde, Montgomery


Body, R. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fort, R.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe amp; Lonsdale)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyd-Caarpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Braine, B. R.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Glover, D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Keegan,D.


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Green, A
Kerr, H. W.


Butler,Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Grimond, J.
Kershaw, J. A.


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Kimball, M.


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Kirk, P. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lagden, G. W.


Channon, H. 
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lambert, Hon. G.



Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.




Leather, E. H. C.
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Leburn, W. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Osborne, C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Page, R. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Partridge, E.
Teeling, W.


Longden, Gilbert
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pott, H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McKibbin, A. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tweedsmuir, Lady


MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Redmayne, M.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Marples, A. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Mathew, R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Maude, Angus
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mawby, R. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sharples, R. C.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith amp; Border)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Neave, Airey
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicholls, Harmer
Soames, Capt. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John Victor


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)



Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Idwal (Wrexham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kenyon, C.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
King, Dr. H. M.


Balfour, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, G. M.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonstiire, E.)
Fienburgh, W.
Ledger, F. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
McGovern, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowles, F. G.
Hale, Leslie
Mahon, Simon


Boyd, T. C.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock. Mrs. Elizabeth
Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hayman, F. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Denis
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hobson, C. R.
Mayhew, C. P.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holman, P.
Messer, Sir F.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, L. J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mitchison, G. R.


Chetwynd, G. R 
Hubbard, T. F.
Monslow, W.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch amp; Finsbury)
Hunter, A. E.
Mort, D. L.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moss, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Mulley, F. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Oram, A. E.


Deer, G.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Orbach, M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oswald, T.







Padley, W. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, J.


Paget, R. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Ross, William
Usborne, H. C.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Viant, S. P.


Pargiter, G. A.
Short, E. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Parker, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Paton, John
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Pearson, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Probert, A. R.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Winterbottom, Richard


Randall, H. E 
Summerskill, Rt, Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rankin, John
Sylvester, G. 0.
Woof, R. E.


Redhead, E. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Reeves, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Reid, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Zilliacus, K.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilkins.


Question put and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end to insert:
or by a person who has applied for a patent or for the registration of a design, to.
It might be for the convenience of the House if together with this Amendment we discussed the two following Amendments, in page 6, lines 23 and 25.
Subsection (4) exempts certain restrictions in regard to patents. During the Committee stage of the Bill I sought to explain the principle on which that was done, which is, broadly, to avoid the duality of control where there already exists a statutory control under the Patents Act. All that these Amendments are really concerned to do is to remove small defects in the existing draft of the Bill and to make provision for cases which fall within the same general principle.
This Amendment and the Amendment in page 6, line 23, deal with a different point, though within the same principle, from that of the Amendment to line 25. The first two Amendments are concerned with the time at which the exemption should arise. As drafted, restrictive agreements arising from the grant of patent licences or the use of registered designs are exempted from the Bill, but, as the House will know, there is, of course, a certain and inevitable time lag between the application for the grant of a patent or registered design and the actual grant thereof.
Many of the agreements which this Clause is intended to exempt are entered

into after the application, but before the grant takes place. All that the first two Amendments propose is to extend the exemption to this class of agreements entered into at that time which are quite clearly covered by the principle which was accepted on the Committee stage.
The third Amendment relates to a rather different point. The Bill as it stands exempts from its scope agreements relating to articles made by a patented process. In the case of patented machines, the agreements commonly relate to the articles made by the machines and to the price and quantity, and so on. of those articles and not to the machines themselves.
Here, again, the agreements relating to the articles made by the machine and imposing these restrictions in respect thereof come within the same general principle because they are subject to the statutory safeguards under Sections 37 and 38 of the Patents Act in the same way as are the patented machines which the Clause already exempts. That being so, these extensions are not extensions of the principle of the exemption; they are merely extensions of the application within that general principle. I hope that with that explanation I may confidently commend the Amendment to the House.

Sir L. Plummer: If the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, and the effect of these Amendments is only to rectify some defects, then I think that the Amendments do not go far enough. But I am not absolutely sure about this, and for that reason I want to put some questions to the hon. Gentleman, because I think that these Amendments, and the Clause itself, need some further elucidation.
We accept that it is quite understandable that ordinary patent agreements between the patentee and the licensee should be excluded from the working of the Bill. But how does this Clause affect patent pools? I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will have in mind the description of patent pools contained in the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission's Report on the Supply of Electric Lamps which appeared in 1951. That document is worth the study of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for it contains a good deal of information which certainly ought not to he forgotten now. I recommend him particularly to that part of the Report which describes what was called the Phoebus agreement, which I think it would be fair also to describe as the "grandaddy" of all restrictive practices agreements and monopolistic tendencies.
Out of the Phoebus agreement, which was designed to provide for an interchange of patents between the manufacturers who were producing electric lamps, and which resulted in such an interchange of those agreements with ordinary agreements that they became almost indistinguisable, came the ordinary pool of patents. Are such patent pools to be excluded from registration under the Clause which we are now discussing? I ask that question. because in paragraph 270 on page 94 of the Commission's Report it is stated:
We have described in Chapter 5 the patent policies formerly followed by members of E.L.M.A. and the new policy they propose to follow in the light of the passing of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices … Act, 1948. …There are, however, two features of the new patent policy on which we must make some further comment. The first is that a patent licence will still fix the price at which the lamps under the patent are to be sold. It is, as we have said, common for patentees to fix prices in this way. and it is no doubt natural to do so when those settling the terms of the licence have agreed common prices among themselves.
This pool of patents was organised solely for the purpose of exchanging patents between those companies who had formed themselves into an association inter alia for the purpose of fixing prices, restricting output and sharing markets, and for the purpose of excluding from access to the patents firms who were not members of that association. I am perfectly certain that the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to perpetuate the

combination which was very properly attacked and scored by the Monopolies Commission. I am sure that the Minister would agree that these firms should not be provided under the Bill with an opportunity to revive patent pools.
I would ask him to see whether the Clause does not give an opportunity for the re-creation of patent pools. If it does, will he take the necessary steps to see that that possibility is denied to people who want to use patent pools for the purposes that I have described?

Sir L. Heald: I understand that these Amendments are the result of consultations between my right hon. and learned Friend, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary with the professional body which is interested in this matter, and which agrees, I understand, with the Amendments. I would therefore like to thank Ministers very much for having had those discussions at the suggestion of one or two of us. It is a very pleasant feature of the Bill that, whatever interests may be involved and whatever differences of opinion we have, the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown themselves very accessible to the people concerned in these matters. That has greatly helped everyone.
I believe there are other Amendments which have not received the same 100 per cent. degree of agreement, but that only shows that any suggestion that my right hon. Friend is giving way to anybody is a complete mistake. I know, from what I have had to do with the matter, that he has taken a great deal of trouble over these matters, and that we ought to be grateful to him and to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has helped him.
As regards what has been said by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), I do not want to enter into a long discussion on the matter. I have not heard the word "Phoebus" for some time, although I was personally engaged in that connection. The Phoebus agreement to which the hon. Member referred was international and, of course, had special characteristics. Secondly, it was shown quite clearly to the Commission, which made it quite clear in the Report, that the result of that agreement had been to build up a great British industry.

Mr. Jay: This is a subject where angels fear to tread, but I would nevertheless like to add one question to those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), in order to be quite sure that we understand something of what the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to do.
One of the criticisms put forward in Committee on Clause 6 (4) was that, while attempting to exclude patent agreements proper from the scope of the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade had, quite inadvertently, made it possible to exclude other types of restrictive agreement affecting the goods in respect of which there was a patent arrangement. It was argued that that might be so because the words of the subsection read:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any licence … or agreement which imposes no such restrictions aforesaid except in respect of the patented article …
The argument was that that might exclude an agreement for some other type of restriction which related to the patented article.
I have looked at the Amendment being dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary, and which gets rid of the latter words. The subsection is now to read, after leaving out words:
under which no such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act are accepted except in respect of.
Then paragraph (a) deals with the invention, and paragraph (b) reads:
articles in respect of which the design is or is proposed to be registered and to which it is applied,
as the case may be.
8.45 p.m.
That, on the face of it, would appear —on this point at any rate—to mean substantially the same as the original Clause. It would still be possible to make a restrictive agreement affecting articles in respect of which the design, etc., would nevertheless be types of restriction which in principle were quite distinct from the actual patent arrangement. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if that would be true under the form of words that he has suggested? Has he really met the difficulty which, in Committee, some of us felt to be quite substantial?

Mr. Mulley: The only doubt that I have stems from my lack of knowledge of the patent laws, but before we part

with these Amendments, I should like to know that there is no possibility of someone applying for a patent or registered design and then unduly prolonging the period whilst that is being considered if it is likely that that patent or design is not likely to be given. I want to be sure that there is not a device here to which someone could turn and use as a loophole instead of registering a particular agreement.
Secondly, and again this perhaps stems from my inability to understand the wording, it is not clear what happens if someone applies and is not granted a patent or registered design. It does not seem clear that automatically that agreement or series of agreements would fall to be registered. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could set our fears at rest on that question.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With the leave of the House, I will deal shortly as best I may with the points which have been raised. I hasten to say that I share the disability to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) gave modest expression in that I am far from expert in patent law, but I take confidence in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) who, I believe, is the leading expert on patent law in the country today.
First, what would happen if the application were made and not granted? The hon. Member asked if the agreement would then fall to be registered, but if the agreement and restrictions are linked to the grant of the licence under the patent and if there is no patent granted on the application, the agreement would fall altogether. In fact there would be nothing to register.
On the point raised by the hon. Member as to the possibility of a delaying device, I think he is probably not very familiar with the position about applications for patents and how they are dealt with at present. For various reasons which I need not go into, the time that is taken to deal with those matters is rather longer than one would like, and there is no question of any applicant prolonging the period—indeed the reverse is true.
To reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), what we were


concerned with when the House was in Committee on this Bill was that the Clause should not give exemption to restrictions which went beyond the actual patented processes—in other words which went beyond the things which come under the statutory control and safeguards of the Patents Act. I can reassure the right hon. Member, I think, quite confidently on that.
I could put the point this way. This Amendment does nothing, as it were, to widen the scope and take the Clause beyond what is covered by patent protection. All it does is, as it were, to expand the Clause in the sense that where articles are made by a patented machine they now, as a result of that machine, come within the exemption because they are covered by the same statutory safeguards under Sections 37 and 38 of the Patents Act. We do not in any way depart from the principle enunciated during the Committee stage that the exemption from the protection of this Bill is given only where there is already a protection under the Patents Act, and that it is to avoid that duality of control.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred to the electric lamp case before the Monopolies Commission, and the question of pooled patents and various esoteric mysteries of that sort. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey who was professionally engaged in those proceedings, has already made some observations to put the matter in perspective. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot deal very fully with that, because, whatever the position about pooled patents, they are in no wise affected by the Amendment before the House at present. That certainly does not affect their position.
I would say in rapid parenthesis, in the hope that I am in order, to the extent of bringing this measure of reassurance to the mind of the hon. Gentleman, that, as I understand it, an agreement to pool patents simpliciter would not itself be registrable, because it is not a restriction relating to goods. Therefore, it is outside Clause 5 of the Bill, but an agreement between holders of patents as to the terms on which each will license people to use his patent is registrable under the Bill.
Further than that, and particularly in respect of hypothetical or specific cases,

I do not think it would be either proper or in order to go, but I hope that that brings some measure of reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. It certainly is not a matter affected by the Amendment with which we are dealing now, to which I hope the House will agree.

Mr. Jay: If I may, by leave of the House, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question. He does not greatly reassure me by saying that he is not widening the Clause, because I understood that what he sought to do was to narrow it. Let us suppose that there was a normal patent agreement between certain parties relating to certain goods. Supposing the same parties made another agreement of a restrictive kind wholly unconnected with the patent relating to these same goods, is it quite clear that that agreement would be registrable as the Bill will now stand?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 6. line 23, after second "or" insert:
of the right to apply for a patent or for the registration of a design, or to 
In line 25, leave out from "agreement" to end of line 28 and insert:
under which no such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act are accepted except in respect of—

(a) the invention to which the patent or application for a patent relates, or articles made by the use of that invention or
(b) articles in respect of which the design is or is proposed to be registered and to which it is applied,

as the case may be".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, at the end to insert:
(5) This part of this Act does not apply to any agreement between two persons, neither of whom is a trade association within the meaning of section five of this Act, for the exchange of information relating to the operation of processes of manufacture (whether patented or not), being an agreement to which no other person is party and under which no such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act are accepted except in respect of the descriptions of goods to be produced by those processes or to which those processes are to be applied; and for the purposes of this subsection, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall he treated as a single person.

Mr.Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), in line 28, to insert a new subsection (5).

Mr. Walker-Smith: The last Amendment with which we were dealing was concerned with patents. This Amendment deals with what is called unpatented information, or, popularly and perhaps more generally, "know-how." The Amendment results from an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee on an Amendment moved in an exploratory and interrogative sense by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).
In the course of those proceedings, my right hon. Friend said he appreciated that there was a problem here. We have addressed ourselves to this problem within certain limitations-the limitations which were defined by him in Committee. We have sought to see that the operation of the Bill does not discourage technical processes based on the exchange of know-how, but at the same time we have adhered to our self-imposed limitation of not providing exemptions for agreements which use the cloak of know-how to escape the obligations of the Bill in respect of restrictive practices.
Perhaps I may recall my right hon. Friend's words, as reported in column 240 of HANSARD of 1st May:
Whatever else we do, we cannot adopt a principle which would say that any price ring or exclusive dealing arrangement would be exempted from the Bill if it contained within it some know-how provisions. That would plainly be so wide as to give an obvious loop hole to anyone who wanted to bring his agreemetn outside the purview of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 240.]
We read in the same column that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) broadly acquiesced in the approach which my right hon. Friend suggested to this problem of know-how.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Know-how?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think before the hon. Member came into the House I said that it was a word used in Committee and is a popular term for unpatented information. It has the advantage of

being a good deal shorter and also avoids the duality of pronunciation about patents which exhibits itself when we use that term.
Agreements relating simply to the exchange of know-how, if I may continue so to describe it, do not come under the Bill at all if they are confined to know-how because they are not restrictions in relation to goods. What we are doing by the Amendment is that where we have agreements containing provision for the imparting of know-how, and in addition restrictions as to the description of the goods which may be produced with that know-how, those restrictions will be exempted from registration under Part I of the Bill, subject to certain provisos which arise because of the general limitation to which I referred earlier.
The first of those provisos is that there should be only two parties to the agreement, neither of which is a trade association. The object of that is to make sure that the exemption cannot cover agreements throughout the industry as to the kind of goods which would be produced, because that would clearly be restrictive in the wider sense. Secondly, the exemption simply covers cases where the parties exchange know-how, agreeing as to the kind of goods to which each will apply it. If the restrictions go beyond restrictions merely as to the kind of goods and specify the quantity of goods to be produced with the know-how or the price of goods or the areas to which they should be limited, any such extension of the restrictions beyond the mere matter of kind of goods would take the agreement outside the exemption which the Amendment provides.
The third proviso or limitation is that there should be no other restrictions in the agreement relating to other goods than those to which the know-how is specifically related.
I am afraid that all these matters relating to these restrictions and exemptions are necessarily a little complicated, but I think the House will agree from my description of the effect of the Amendment and the limitation upon the exemption which I have sought to describe that we have adhered to the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend in Committee and in which hon.


Members opposite acquiesced. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Amendment as a proper provision in the Bill to meet this objective.

9.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: Again I should like to express my personal obligation to my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend for having gone into this matter carefully and for giving us what is very nearly what we regard as adequate.
I asked that there should be consultation between my right hon. Friend and those who were closely concerned in these matters. I am glad to know that the discussions have taken place and that those concerned have had the opportunity of putting before my right hon. Friend some important points, which he fully appreciates and to which he has given effect. In the end, I understand, the points under discussion came down to two, upon the first of which my right hon. Friend accepted the view put before him that the "persons concerned" should include "interconnected body corporate". My right hon. Friend has accepted that and it is now in the Clause.
The other point was a different one and is of considerable importance in relation to the export trade. As the Amendment is drafted, limitation in overseas territories is not permitted. The Amendment which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) have put down includes paragraph (b) relating to
areas or places or persons or classes of persons outside the United Kingdom….
I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to give this matter a little more thought? Those who have important know-how information at their disposal enter into agreements with people in foreign countries. Clearly, in many cases, the foreign manufacturer would be interested in such an arrangement only if he were assured that, so far as his country was concerned, he would be the owner of the exclusive rights.
We must bear in mind that this know-how sharing arrangement is the opposite of a restrictive practice because normally the know-how, unless something is done about it, would be secret; it would be kept for the manufacturer himself. Therefore, an arrangement under which it is able to be shared with someone else

means in effect that a sharing takes place which would probably not otherwise be possible. Therefore, it seems to follow that in any agreement between the two parties in this country, it should be possible as a matter of course to make provision regarding the position abroad. It is only on that basis that it may be possible to enter into important agreements for that very purpose with foreign manufacturers. In return, of course, we may get valuable information from abroad.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend to look into the matter again. I understand that further information could be supplied on this subject giving examples of cases where this aspect is of materiality. If my hon. and learned Friend would look into it with a view to the possibility of introducing a further Amendment in another place, I would be happy then to accept his Amendment, for which I am grateful in any event, and I should not proceed with the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) speaks with very great knowledge and authority on this subject, and I have no doubt that it is as a result of his knowledge and persuasiveness that the Government have put down this Amendment. We see no objection to it at all.
We have not throughout the conduct of this Bill taken any frivolous objection to any wise or sensible provision that is necessary in the public interest. Speaking for myself and, I think, for most of my hon. Friends, we fully understand and appreciate the reasons which make it necessary that there should be some provision of this kind in the Bill. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is very desirable in the interests of our own manufacturers who have specialised secret or semi-secret knowledge to impart to people overseas, and correspondingly it is in the interests of manufacturers and dealers here who wish to profit by the researches and experiments which in many industrial fields are pursued at greater lengths abroad than they are here, that our manufacturers should have the benefit of that knowledge. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, all that in itself is desirable.
Speaking for myself, I am satisfied that in this Amendment there are adequate safeguards which make it quite clear, as is the Government's intention, that the exemption being granted to an agreement of this kind, designed for the exchange of confidential information, is limited to agreements that do not contain any of the offending provisions to be found in Clause 5. It is on that basis that we support the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, at the end to insert:
(5) This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement made in accordance with regulations approved by the Board of Trade under section thirty-seven of the Trade Marks Act, 1938 (which makes provision as to certification trade marks) authorising the use of such a trade mark, being an agreement under which no such restrictions as arc described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act are accepted, other than restrictions permitted by the said regulations.
(6) This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement between the registered proprietor of a trade mark (other than a certification trade mark) and a person authorised by the agreement to use the mark subject to registration as a registered user under section twenty-eight of the said Act of 1938 (which makes provision as to registered users), being an agreement under which no such restrictions as aforesaid are accepted except in respect of the descriptions of goods bearing the mark which are to be produced or supplied or the processes of manufacture to he applied to such goods or to goods to which the mark is to he applied.
As the House will see, there are two subsections which it is proposed to incorporate into this Clause as a result of this Amendment, and the Amendment in fact raises two distinct points, one in each subsection both referring to the matter of trade marks.
There was no exemption contained in the Bill as originally drafted and presented to the House, in respect of restrictions in relation to trade marks, becasue we then felt that restrictions imposed under such agreements were subject to exemption in any event under the provisions of Clause 6 (1) which exempts agreements expressly authorised by statute. On reflection and with the benefit of further consideration on this point, we feel that this is not so, because the restrictions in question are not expressly authorised under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, so as to bring them

within the general exemption of subsection (1). Therefore, it is necessary to give appropriate exemption by the specific provision of the two subsections in this Amendment.
The effect of the proposed subsection (5) is to exempt from Part I of the Bill an authorisation to apply a certification trade mark which imposes no relevant restrictions except such as are permitted by the regulations approved by the Board of Trade for governing the use of that mark. Certification trade marks. as the House will be aware, are, so to speak, general marks which distinguish certified goods
… in respect of origin, material. mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other such characteristics.
from goods which are not so certified. The regulations governing the use of such marks have to be approved by the Board of Trade and deposited with the Registrar of Trade Marks. Certification marks may not in law be registered by any person carrying on trade or business in goods of the kind in question, that is to say goods to which the marks apply, but they may be, and frequently are, registered by trade associations.
That is really the importance of the first of these subsections because membership of the association may confer the right to use the marks but that right is restricted, as indeed it must be, to the use of goods which comply with the requirements as to quality and so on. So the position is, under the Bill as drafted, that as there is no general exemption under subsection (1), the association rules would in fact be registrable if they are not specifically exempted.
That is obviously an inappropriate provision for two reasons, first, that the restrictions in regard to the use and quality and so on of the goods are necessary in the interest of the public and, secondly, safeguards against abuse and protection of the public are already contained in the Trade Marks Act, so in that sense this is rather analogous to what we were discussing in the Amendment before the last, where the same principle applies in respect of patents where there is statutory protection under the Patent Act. So the effect of subsection (5) is as I have said, and that is the reason for it. I should point out that the exemption proposed is limited to the restrictions permitted by the approved regulations.
The other subsection raises a rather different point. It deals with the ordinary trade marks as distinct from the special certification trade marks which are dealt with in the proposed subsection (5). The new subsection (6) exempts from registration an agreement between the proprietor of a trade mark and a person authorised to use the registered mark as a registered user under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1938. if it imposes no relevant restriction except in respect of the description of goods to be produced or supplied or the processes of manufacture to be applied to such goods or to goods to which the mark is to be applied.
Here again, the public interest is already safeguarded by statutory provision. It is safeguarded by the provision prescribed in Section 28 (5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1938. which says:
When the requirements of the last foregoing subsection have been complied with, it the Registrar, after considering the information furnished to him under that subsection, is satisfied that in all the circumstances the use of the trade mark in relation to the proposed goods or any of them by the proposed registered user subject to any conditions or restrictions which the Registrar thinks proper would not he contrary to the public interest, the Registrar may register the proposed registered user as a registered user in respect of the goods as to which he is so satisfied subject as aforesaid.
9.15 p.m.
The public interest thus has statutory protection with the Registrar of Trade Marks, and the restrictions to which the Registrar has regard relate primarily to two matters, first, to the characteristics of the material, that is to say quality and so on, and, secondly. to the mode or place of permitted use. These things are set out in subsection (4) of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. That, of course. refers to the mode of applying the mark or the place at which the article is marked.
So far as those second matters are concerned, they are not registrable in any event, because they are not within the provisions of Clause 5. But the first matters, restrictions relating to the characteristics of the article, quality and so on, would be registrable if this subsection is not written into the Bill to give them exemption. Here again, these matters ought clearly to be exempted, on the same principle as guided us in relation to patents, that is, the avoidance of duality of control.
I would like finally to emphasis that here again, as with "know-how", we have proceeded within very clear and definite limits, and this subsection would not exempt restrictions relating to quantity or price because those are not characteristics within the meaning of subsection (5) of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. It is. therefore, a relatively narrow matter, and one in which there are already statutory safeguards.
Again, I apologise for the inevitably somewhat technical nature of this Amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I have an Amendment to this Amendment upon the Notice Paper, which, with your permission. Mr. Speaker, I should like to move. Before doing so, may I say that I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary need apologise for having given a very careful and comprehensive explanation of a subject which is by no means easy to explain. It is useful to have it on record. I do not think it calls for any prolonged debate. I agree with him that the Amendment is similar in its nature to others we have been discussing, particularly the one relating to what he calls "know-how", by which I believe he means some specialised knowledge of some special process.
We do not object to it, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, it is carefully hedged round with safeguards designed to ensure that it is only that limited class of agreement, between registered owner of a trade mark and licensee, which it is reasonable to protect; if such an agreement transgresses beyond the bounds of what is strictly necessary for the protection of that particular subject-matter. and if it incorporates any of the objectionable features referred to in Clause 5, then its exclusion is no longer sanctified and it is caught in the net of Clause 5.
The Amendment we put down is, we think necessary in the interests of clarity. I hope it will be accepted because the word "description" is apt to be ambiguous and misleading.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to which the hon. Member is now speaking, which seeks to leave out "descriptions" and to insert "definition". was not selected.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I cannot move it. All I can say is that I hope that, having


seen the suggestion on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the reasons which prompted some of us to make it. Those reasons are that we thought that it would be an improvement in the language of the Amendment, because the word "descriptions" is apt to be rather ambiguous and unnecessarily wide whereas what is wanted is to protect the definition of goods which are the subject of a particular trade mark.
The essence of trade mark protection is that we identify particular goods with the trade mark to which they are attached. Perhaps that is a small matter of detail which might engage the attention of the President of the Board of Trade between now and the next stage of the Bill.

Sir L. Heald: In thanking my right hon. Friend for the Amendment, I should like to say that I understand that these two points arose as a result of the interest taken in this matter by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, a professional body which does a lot of work in connection with these matters, and I think that we should be grateful to them. They raised the matter, and I understand that they would have liked my right hon. Friend to go a little further than this, but I feel that they will be satisfied with what he has done and I certainly do not want to take the matter any further now.
This is an important matter. These registered user provisions are of considerable importance in mercery, although the layman may not know much about them, and I think that a valuable addition has been made. Also, certification marks have proved to be a great success and, there again, I think that these provisions are desirable. Again I thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end to insert:
(6) No account shall be taken for the purposes of this Part of this Act of any agreement to comply with or apply, in respect of the production of any goods or the application to goods of any process of manufacture, standards of dimensions, design or quality for the time being approved by the British Standards Institution.
The Amendment meets an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage to deal with the registration of agree-

ments affecting British Standards Institution standards. We do not want to register those, and the effect of the Amendment is that they will not be registered provided the agreement does not limit production of goods of a higher standard of quality than that laid down by the British Standards Institution.

Miss Elaine Burton: My remarks will be brief, but it is not often that I have the pleasure of agreeing with the President of the Board of Trade and I should like to say, as one who has been somewhat critical of the British Standards Institution in this House, how very pleased I am that the right hon. Gentleman has felt able to suggest the Amendment, as indeed he told us he would.
It seems to me that as at present constituted the whole work of the Institution is based on this voluntary agreement between producers, and also that if those producers who supported the work of the Institution had to register these arrangements and stand the risk of justifying them in the courts then little work would be done by the Institution.
The point I want to make is that if the work done by the British Standards Institution were reduced, it would have a drastic effect on both consumers in this country and efficiency in home production. Also, it seems to me that it would affect the ability of the British Standards Institution to come to agreements on which it is possible for it to argue with people overseas about international standards.
I have frequently argued in the House that I feel that, on the matter of standards, the agreement or majority agreement which is demanded of producers takes in far too many and that the standard is thereby at times too low. On the other hand, so far as the Amendment is concerned, there is little doubt that the fact that the producer, distributor and consumer have a say in this means that there is an endeavour to obtain a majority opinion.
Before we leave the Amendment, I should like to emphasise that I believe agreements reached by the British Standards Institution are quite different from agreements arrived at separately by trade associations. I believe I am right in saying that this was recognised in various Reports by the Monopolies Commission.


I think it was specifically recognised in the Report dealing with lamps and cables, which advocated that matters of specification affecting user interest should be reached between manufacturers and users through the machinery of the British Standards Institution.
One of the best examples of the work done in the consumer cause in the past few years relates to the bedding industry. I am sure the President will be one of the first to agree that, following the ending of the Utility scheme, this industry, as was not the case in some other industries, worked out standards for bedding and for certification marking of bedding according to those British Standards.
From discussions which I have had with various industries, I feel that if the President had not brought forward this Amendment, there would have been a considerable falling off in work done on the production of British Standards.
In the Amendment we are arguing only in relation to the standards produced by the Institution. I should have thought that if there were any other trade associations which wanted to argue similar exceptions for their standards, the real answer would be that they should put the matter to the test—to consumer debate, as I should describe it—through the machinery of the British Standards Institution to ascertain whether they would qualify as British Standards.
I am very pleased to be able to support the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(CLASSES OF AGREEMENTS TO BE REGISTERED.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (3).

In line 32, leave out "powers" and insert "power".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 8.—(PARTICULARS TO BE FURNISHED FOR REGISTRATION.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, to leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert:
(5) The particulars required by this section may be furnished by or on behalf of any person who is party to the agreement or, as the case may be, was party thereto immediately before its determination, and where such particulars are duly furnished by or on behalf of any such person the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be complied with on the part of all such persons.

This is a consequential Amendment. We have included the relevant parts of subsections (5) and (6) in a new Clause which we discussed earlier. We propose to insert a new subsection (5). The purpose is simply to make explicit that the obligation to furnish particulars of agreements to the Registrar may be carried out by any one of the parties to the agreement. The obligation to register the agreement is discharged as soon as those particulars have been furnished. I think it better to state that in the Bill, because there was some discussion about it at an earlier stage.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I want briefly to return to a point which was made earlier, namely, the fact that so far as we can sec the Bill does not sufficiently explain which party to an agreement is under an obligation to see that the agreement is registered and that the particulars are furnished, or whether all parties are under that obligation. As I understand the Clause, it very sensibly and explicitly provides that once one party has discharged the obligation all the other parties to an agreement are covered. Since the Bill also refers to wilful default in failing to register, however, I wonder what the Court will say when someone says, "It is true that I am a party to this agreement. but I was under the impression that the other party was going to register, and to the best of my knowledge and belief they have done so. I have done nothing about it because I did not think that it fell to me to do anything at all."
The Bill is not clear on that point, and I should like the President to give an assurance that, if possible, he will insert wording of the same clarity as we have in the Amendment, which states that the obligation is complied with once one party has registered. I hope that we can have a form of words which will throw the onus upon all the parties to an agreement until one party has discharged that onus.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The President's treatment of this Amendment is extremely unsatisfactory. It is within the recollection of many of us that at an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill we were pressing the point that it contained no clear provision setting upon the shoulders of any person or party a statutory obligation to register. On that occasion the


President said that we would reach this matter later, and that we could then consider what the Government were providing to meet the difficulty to which we had drawn attention.
That point has now been reached, and it has become quite clear that all that the Amendment does is to provide that anybody who is a party to an agreement is given a discretion about furnishing the particulars. To my mind that is entirely unsatisfactory. It will always be a defence to any such person, in default proceedings, to be able to say that he was sitting by and looking to his associates to take the necessary step. I pursue the point only because I regard it as one of substance. I would ask the President again to consider this matter and to make it quite plain upon whom the obligation rests.
It is all very well to say that it rests upon all the parties, but they cannot all be subject to the order provided for under Clause 15. They cannot all, in a corporate capacity, be made liable to the penalties provided for by the Bill. The President cannot be allowed to get away with the proposition that the obligation is laid upon all parties, when all that has been done is to make it clear to each component party that he may register. The position is not satisfactory, and is made rather worse, if anything, by the use of the expression "may be furnished" in the Amendment.
It will be the easiest thing in the world to present a substantial defence to any allegation under the default Clause, because the function of giving the particulars required by the Bill is made only discretionary upon the individuals concerned, and it is open at any time for any one of them to say that he was simply waiting upon his colleagues to take the step which he would have taken had he not believed that they were taking it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: During the Committee stage we had a most extraordinarily involved argument from the Parliamentary Secretary to prove that the parties to the agreement were the persons liable to register the agreement. The argument was that because there was a default therefore there was an obligation, and someone who was a party to the agreement must be liable under the obligation. That is a most extraordinarily

involved, intricate and, I may say, extremely doubtful proposition.
This Measure will have to be operated by secretaries of associations and of companies, etc. They want to know clearly where they stand. It should be made perfectly clear in the Bill on whom the obligation lies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has just put forward what seems to me a very forceful consideration on subsection (5). His suggestion was that by use of the word "may" in subsection (5) the position is made even more doubtful and difficult. The words are:
The particulars required by this section may he furnished by or on behalf of any person who is party to the agreement….
We have here an express provision that they may be furnished by or on behalf of the party without any definite obligation that it shall be done except by the extraordinarily involved argument produced by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I gather from the President of the Board of Trade that the intention is, of course, not that there should be a mere option on the part of the parties to register the agreement, but a definite obligation. Therefore, in so far as these words of subsection (5) throw any doubt upon that, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish that to take place. I am sure he appreciates that in subsection (5) there are two definite and, although connected, nevertheless somewhat separate divisions, the first, that the particualrs may be furnished by or on behalf of the parties and, the second,
where such particulars are duly furnished by or on behalf of any such person, the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be complied with on behalf of all such persons.
If the right hon. Gentleman's intention is that there should be no doubt about this question of obligation, it would be desirable to provide that where particulars are duly
furnished by or on behalf of any person who is a party to the agreement or, as the case may be was party thereto immediately before its determination, and where such particulars are duly furnished by or on behalf of any such person the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be complied with on the part of all such persons.
In other words, making one provision only, providing for the exemption of other parties when some parties provide the


particulars instead of having two provisions which can be read separately and which have two distinct intentions.
There would be no difficulty about this wording if it were made quite clear in express terms in the Bill that there was an obligation on the parties to furnish the particulars. I still cannot understand why the President does not make it expressly an obligation on the parties to the agreement in terms which every secretary of a company or trade association can read and see for himself instead of leaving the matter in the mess in which it is now.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will study again the arguments which have been addressed to me. I have drawn great benefit from the suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the drafting of this difficult Bill has been helped in that way. I do not think that there is any trouble about this, save a trouble which is inherent in the position, namely, that we cannot say that every party to every agreement shall register. That we cannot say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]—because we should be inundated with registrations.
If the House will bear with me, I wish to put the real problem before hon. Members.
If we said that every party to every agreement shall register, we might get an agreement to which there were two hundred parties. All we want is to get the agreement registered, with the names of the parties, so that we know precisely what it is, and then it can be called up in the ordinary way. The Clause says, in subsection (1)
Within the period specified in this section the following particulars shall be furnished to the Registrar….
What we are here concerned with is to make plain that the obligation will be discharged if one of the parties has furnished the particulars. I think that is a reasonable and sensible arrangement to make.
I do not want—I am sure the House does not want—the Registrar to be flooded with masses of papers, all saying precisely the same thing, from two hundred parties to a particular agreement. I do not think that there is any real problem involved here, but I will look again at the points which hon. Gentlemen have made, in an earnest desire to see whether anything has escaped me.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Of course the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we do not want everyone to register; that would be a ridiculous provision. But there is at present no obligation in this Bill on anybody in any clear terms to register. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this suggestion, which would entirely meet his difficulty, that subsection (1) should read —and I am putting in the Amendment I suggest—
Within the period specified in this section the following particulars shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) hereof, be furnished by the parties thereto to the Registrar….
That would mean that there was a definite obligation on all the parties, subject to the revision of subsection (5), and that the provision of the particulars by any party should discharge all other parties from the obligation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will certainly look at that suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO THE REGISTER.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 14. leave out "by the Court" and insert:
under section (Powers of High Court in case of default in furnishing particulars) of this Act".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 11. —(POWER OF REGISTRAR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 26, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 12.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 11, leave out from "section" to "he" in line 12.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 13.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AND VENUE.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move. in page 13, line 21, to leave out from "may" to the end of the line.
This is one of five Amendments, the effect of which is to dispense with the time-limit of three years for the commencement of proceedings on indictment. The time-limit will remain for the summary proceedings but, in the case of the more serious offences, some of them may well be of the category where the matter


cannot have come to the knowledge of the Registrar because of the deception of the man who has concealed these arrangements.
It does not seem right, and I think the House feels that it was not right, that the man who has successfully concealed these arrangements for three years should be exempted by the Bill. I think the House will accept the view, which I am sure is right, that we should take out the three years' exemption for proceedings on indictment.

Mr. Mulley: Members in all parts of the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with this matter of cases which fall to be dealt with on indictment, but he did not deal with the point which was raised in Committee why it is necessary to have this restriction in cases that come before magistrates. If we are to give someone the opportunity of slipping out of punishment because he has managed to carry on his fraud or concealment for three years, I should have thought there should be an equal case for the small offences as for the large. There may be some important reason why this distinction should be made between the summary cases and those on indictment, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us an explanation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Cases under summary jurisdiction cannot avoid coming to the notice of the Registrar, when they concern failure to comply with a notice which the Registrar has served and matters of that kind. It is not a particular imposition to say that once the Registrar knows of an offence he should bring proceedings within a certain length of time. Per contra, the facts may never come to the knowledge of the Registrar in the other cases, because of the deception practised by the party concerned. If in those circumstances we have a three-year limit we give a man a special benefit of his own deception.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any precedent for this three-year time-limit for summary offences? Why should there be a time-limit at all? Could we have an answer?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot give the answer offhand, but I will make inquiries as to whether there is a limit. The hon.

and learned Gentleman is more familiar with the law than I am. I believe that normally there is a limit of six months for cases under summary jurisdiction, which is extended to twelve in certain cases under the Bill. There is normally a limit during which summary proceedings must be brought.
Without arguing whether it should be six months or twelve months, I think that a normal feature of our law respecting the limitation of criminal proceedings should be preserved where the knowledge of the facts must, in the nature of things, come to the notice of the man who will institute the prosecution. The difference occurs when he might never have known of the facts at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:In page 13, line 23, after "time", insert "within three years after the commission of the offence and".

In line 30, leave out from "may" to "be" in line 31.

In line 32, after "time", insert:
within three years after the commission of the offence and".

In line 37, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft]

Clause14.—(REGULATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 14, line 12, at the end to insert:
(b) for excluding from the particulars to be furnished or entered in the register under this Part of this Act such details as persons, prices, terms or other matters as are material for the purpose only of defining the particular application from time to time of continuing restrictions accepted under agreements of which particulars are so entered.
The effect of these words is to enable the Registrar to make regulations, which will be subject to the negative Order procedure, to enable him to exclude from the register detailed particulars defining the application from time to time of continuing restrictions under agreements already registered.
This is another of the devices—I make no apology for introducing quite a number of them—to protect the Registrar against unnecessary information. We might well have a situation in which there was an agreement for common prices and suppose, for the sake of argument, the prices were altered every Thursday
morning, it would be really intolerable if all those price alterations had to pour into the Registry all through the week—minor adjustments or recordings of incidents in a common price agreement.
It is not easy to define in the Bill the dividing line between what is an incidental application of the agreement and the agreement itself. I think the House would be wise, keeping the matter within its own control under the negative Order procedure, to have some flexibility in this matter. If the Registrar finds that there is to be a flood of these things coming in on a particular agreement he can make arrangements to cut them out because we do not want them. We want him to concentrate on what really matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause15.—(JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Amendments made: In page 14,line 34, leave out "the application of the Registrar" and insert:
application made in accordance with this section".

In line 36, leave out "Part I" and insert "this Part".

In line 37, leave out "the said Part I" and insert "this Part of this Act".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr.P.Thorneyeroft: I beg to move, in page 14, line 38, after "agreement" to insert:
(other than restrictions in respect of matters described in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (5) of section six of this Act)".
This is really hardly more than a drafting Amendment, but it was due to an error. It does exclude overseas trading arrangements from the jurisdiction of the Court. If they cast their minds back to the discussions we had, hon. Members will remember that we agreed that purely overseas trading arrangements were not restrictions on exports and imports and should not be included.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I ask why therefore we have paragraph (a)of subsection (5) of Clause 6?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That refers to the export of goods from the United Kingdom. All I am concerned with here is overseas trading arrangements. Clause 6 includes a number of things, one of which
is exports and there are a number of paragraphs dealing with overseas trading arrangements. All I am concerned with here is to exclude overseas trade arrangements from the jurisdiction of the Court. Export agreements are dealt with separately, and are not in fact dealt with through the Court, but are brought in under Clause 25 for the purpose of dealing with them under the Monopolies. Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 39, at end insert:
(2) An application to the Court under the foregoing subsection may be made

(a) in any case, by the Registrar;
(b) in a case where an order in respect of the agreement is in force against any person under subsection (2) of section (Powers of High Court in case of default in furnishing particulars) of this Act, by that person
Provided that no such application shall be made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection until after the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the order under the said subsection (2) was made.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 14, line 41, after "interest", to insert:
the agreement shall be void in respect of those restrictions; and without prejudice to the foregoing provision".
This Amendment adds a power to the Court to ensure that, where particular restrictions are found to be contrary to the public interest, not only can orders be made dealing with the particular restrictions, but that the agreements will become void. I think that is rather an important additional result to ensure in this Bill. It is important in normal circumstances, but it is perhaps additionally important in some of these rather complicated cases in which some of the parties who are in the United Kingdom are not entering into restrictions, but in which restrictions are entered into by the foreign parties. The Court cannot do much about the foreign parties, but it can ensure that the agreement itself is void. I therefore think that this Amendment covers what might otherwise be a gap in the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 15, line 2, leave out "are party to the proceedings" and insert:
carry on business in the United Kingdom". —[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We are a little concerned about this and should like a further explanation why this Amendment is considered consequential. We are dealing here in Clause 15 with the judicial investigation of registered agreements, and subsection (2) provides that, with regard to any of these restrictions which are found by the Court to be contrary to the public interest—
the Court may, upon the application of the Registrar, make such order as appears to the Court to be proper for restraining all or any of the persons party to the agreement who are party to the proceedings—
from this, that and the other. The relevant words are—
who are party to the proceedings—
What is proposed is that, instead of the injunction to restrain applying to the party to the proceedings, the injunction shall apply to the person who carries on the business in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand, first, why an injunction should not be issued against the party to the proceedings and, secondly, why an injunction should issue against a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom if he were not a party to the proceedings. I should like an explanation of that alteration.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The explanation is that this deals with a rather difficult case where the parties to the agreement are partly United Kingdom and partly foreign. There may be a case in which the parties in the United Kingdom have not entered into restrictive arrangements, and it follows that in such a case an injunction against them is neither appropriate nor possible. It is no good issuing an injunction against the parties who are not in the United Kingdom; we do not want to issue injunctions which can have no effect whatever.
The Amendment simply makes it plain that in such cases the power of the Court is confined to declaring the agreement void and forbidding the British parties from giving effect to the agreement, enforcing it against foreigners or making another one like it. The facts of life impose that limitation upon us. If we do not amend the Bill in the way I describe, voiding the agreement, the powers of the Court would necessarily be very limited, but I think the Amendment makes it plain that the powers are limited to the extent I have indicated.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am not clear whether the Amendment gives a new power to the Court to issue an injunction against persons who have not been parties to the proceedings. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) raised that point, and I do not think he got a very clear answer. It seems very novel and very revolutionary that the Court should issue an injunction against somebody who may be a party to an agreement but who has not been a party to the proceedings. He may have some very good reasons for which he should not have an injunction issued against him which have never been heard by the Court.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If I may speak by the leave of the House. may I press the President a little on this matter? It is clear from his answer that what is involved is a legal technicality and that no question of policy is involved. I would ask him to look at the matter again, and leave it at that.
First of all, taking the words as they stand, the injunction would issue against the party to the proceedings. He would not be a party to the proceedings, appearing before the Court, if he were not a person in this country, at any rate through his representative. If he were a party to the proceedings one would contemplate that at any rate in the vast majority of cases he would be a person in this country, at any rate through his representative. That is the first point.
Secondly, an injunction is merely an order against the person personally; it is not a case of executing anything against goods in this country or anything like that, and it would operate upon the person as soon as he was in this country or came within the jurisdiction of the Court.
It therefore does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is satisfactory. I believe that the two points which I made originally still stand and I am not at all convinced by his reply. There is nothing between us on policy here and I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this again, because the answer which he gave is no answer to the objections which have been raised.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have made a quick inquiry and understand that I was right in what I said. It is a rather difficult technical and legal point but what I said is, I understand, correct concerning the alteration of these words to make it demonstrably clear that the order of the Court can issue only against the United Kingdom parties to these proceedings.
It is no good imagining that the Court can issue an injunction against a foreign person who has entered into restrictions although they may be part of the agreement and it is, therefore, necessary to insert these words. It is certainly not intended that an injunction should issue against someone who was not party to the proceedings. The Amendment is not for that purpose but excludes the foreign persons from the category of people against whom the injunction might issue. I freely admit that this is a technical matter. I will have the arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman and others have advanced examined and sec whether there is any flaw—I understand there is not—which should be put right.

Mr. Jay: May I put the question in this way? While we see that it is necessary to insert the words
carry on business in the United Kingdom
why is it also necessary to leave out "or party to the proceedings "? Why not leave in both?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is the point which should be properly examined.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, to leave out "any variation or" and insert "the".
I suggest that we could conveniently consider at the same time the next Amendment, in line 9.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We might discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks), in line 9, at the end to insert:
Provided that if at any time during the proceedings it appears to the Court that the agreement which is the subject of the application is reasonably capable of amendment, so as to render the restriction or restrictions in question not contrary to the public interest and that the parties to the agreement desire so to amend it, the Court may if it thinks fit adjourn the proceedings for this purpose,

without prejudice to its eventual decision, and thereupon the Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of the agreement so amended and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto in all respects as though it had been the subject of an application by the Registrar under subsection (1) hereof.

Mr. Thorneycroft: These Amendments are a clarification of something which is clearly in the Bill. It was always our intention that it should be there: namely, that the parties should be able to vary an agreement during the course of the proceedings, which is useful, and that the Court should have power to rule against the original agreement and, if necessary, against the varied agreement. There is no guarantee that the varying of an agreement would necessarily mean that it would get through.
It would be wrong to say that if, after a case had proceeded some way and it was found that with variation an agreement would be approved, all the proceedings should start ab initio. Most countries which have experimented in this branch of law have found that some degree of negotiated settlement in proceedings of this character has a part to play in the arrangements. I suggest that we adopt that experience here, and make it demonstrably clear in the Bill that these variations can take effect without in any way prejudicing the power of the Court to make the necessary order against the agreements.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that it is his intention that in the event of a variation of an order, if the Court were to consider an order as varied, it should not be necessary for the proceedings to be started afresh ab initio. That was the apprehension in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself in tabling our Amendment. We did not feel that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court would enable it to continue the hearing of proceedings which had started upon one agreement but which it had adjourned to enable that agreement to be varied, because the varied agreement would, in our view, have been a fresh cause of proceedings before the Court and it would have to be started ab initio.
My right hon. Friend says that the words which he has included in his Amendment cover the point, and that in those circumstances it would not be necessary for the matter to be started


afresh. We are grateful to him for meeting us on the point, and we are glad to support his Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I think that the Amendments in the name of the President of the Board of Trade are very reasonable, and we on this side of the House certainly accept them. The Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. JoynsonHicks) is open to some objection. It was getting perilously near to making the Court into an organisation for settling matters between parties and acting as a sort of judge in a haggle, which would never do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 9, at end insert:
and where an agreement is varied after the commencement of the proceedings, the Court may make a declaration and, if it thinks fit an order under subsection (2) of this section, either in respect of the agreement as at the commencement of the proceedings or in respect of the agreement as varied, or both".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 16.—(PRESUMPTION AS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 15, line 17, to leave out from "necessary" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
having regard to the character of the goods to which it applies, to protect the public against injury in connection with the consumption, installation or use of those goods;".
This Amendment is no more than a clarification of subsection (1, a) of Clause 16. There was some discussion in Committee about what precisely was meant by:
that the restriction is reasonably necessary for the protection of the public in connection with the purchase, consumption. installation or use of goods requiring special knowledge or skill in that connection; 
The effect of this Amendment would be to make the paragraph read:
that the restriction is reasonably necessary having regard to the character of the goods to which it applies, to protect the public against injury in connection with the consumption, installation or use of those goods; 
In other words, we seek to make it demonstrably plain that it is the safety of the public in those respects to which the Court should have regard under this subsection.

There are other arguments which can be advanced, but we are concerned here with the argument, which is fairly advanced from time to time, that the public is in need of protection. It was, indeed, the very point that was argued in the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Exclusive Dealing, that there were cases where safety was involved. This subsection now admits that argument as a proper one to be advanced before the Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, at the end to insert:
or the products of such goods 
Clause 16 (1, b) refers to
purchasers, consumers or users of any goods…
I do not think it is quite clear that "any goods" would include the products of such goods. Let me mention as an example electricity produced by heavy electrical generating plant. If the products of such goods are not included, an industry would not be able to argue before the Court that the public were benefiting by the efficiency of the machinery sold in that industry. If that is so, I suggest that that is an unfair limitation. I hope that this Amendment may be considered to clarify the situation and that the Government will feel that it is acceptable and desirable.

Mr. W. S. Duthie (Banff): I beg to second the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I accept in principle what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) says. I can, however, assure him that there is in fact no need for this Amendment. The sort of argument that he has in mind is fully admissible under the Clause as drafted. That is to say that under subsection(1,b)
 that the removal of the restriction would deny to the public as purchasers, consumers or users of any goods other specific and substantial benefits or advantages…
It would be perfectly admissible, although I am glad that my hon. Friend put down the Amendment to raise the point, to say that it applies to the machinery or the goods that are made from the machinery. I am not saying what weight would be


attached to that argument in particular cases, and no doubt the nearer one was to the restriction the more force perhaps the argument would have, but at the same time it is fully admissible under the Clause as drafted and it is not limited to any particular goods.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should have thought that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), if he had been following the President and the Committee stage of this Bill, would have realised perfectly well that by this time there is hardly any argument of any kind whatsoever that cannot be brought within the ambit of subsection (1, b). It is a very stupid business man who cannot rely on that subsection, so justifying almost any agreement he has made.
This subsection is the most pernicious provision in all the loopholes provided in this Bill, and I am not at all surprised at the answer which the hon. Member has received. We are only grateful to him for bringing forward the Amendment which exposes once more how really ridiculous is the provision of subsection(b).

Amendment negatived.

Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, to leave out "substantial".
I think that it would be convenient if we discussed, together with this Amendment, the Amendment in line 9,
leave out from 'export ' to of ' in line 10 and insert business which is substantial either in relation to the whole export business of the United Kingdom or in relation to the whole business (including export business)".
These Amendments are to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). He pointed out that under the Clause as drafted even damage to a minute export trade could in fact be used as an argument, whatever weight was attached to it, in favour of justifying a particular restriction. We now seek to get over that difficulty, and, I think, successfully, by somewhat altering the wording of the Clause and saying:
That, having regard to the conditions actually obtaining or reasonably foreseen at the time of the application, the removal of the restriction would be likely to cause a reduction in the volume or earnings of the export business which is substantial either in relation to the whole export business of the

United Kingdom or in relation to the whole business (including export business) of the said trade or industry;…
I think that effectively meets the very pertinent point which the hon. and learned Gentleman put during the Committee stage.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is extraordinary to hear the President say that this was to meet an objection which was raised during the Committee stage, the objection being that the Clause as it stands was not directed to a substantial reduction in the volume of the business of the United Kingdom or the trade as the case may be, and that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cure that objection —the objection that it is not substantial —by omitting the word "substantial" from the Clause. That really is a rather odd provision.
I cannot understand why he proposes to leave out the word "substantial". That word, in so far as it is directed to the kind of trade we want, is obviously an important word. The President proposes to leave out the word "substantial". He proposes that the paragraph should read:
…a reduction in the volume or earnings of the export business…
Then, I agree, he does use the words "which is substantial", and the paragraph continues:
which is substantial either in relation to the whole export business of the United Kingdom…
So far, of course, we are in complete agreement. It goes on:
or in relation to the whole business (including export business) of the said trade or industry;
If it is a substantial reduction, by reason of export trade or otherwise, and it is a substantial reduction as regards the trade or industry, that is sufficient.
A trade or industry, of course, might be extremely limited. I cannot understand why the words should be:
substantial … in relation to … the trade or industry".
Why have those words? Why not make them "substantial in relation to the trade of the United Kingdom "? That is the approach, as I understand it, and the test which it is intended to impose here is the test of public interest, and whether there is a substantial loss to the United Kingdom as a whole. If that is the approach, why


not just limit the provision to the United Kingdom, instead of going on to provide that the reduction may be sufficient if it is substantial in relation to the trade or industry?
One of two things ought to matter here. Either one should have the approach of the public interest, from the point of view of the United Kingdom, or one should have the approach that it is hard luck on a particular business if it is injured. But the approach here, in the latter part of this provision, is neither. It is neither the United Kingdom as a whole, because it may not apply to the United Kingdom as a whole—there may be no public injury at all, as the Amendment stands—nor, as the Amendment stands, is the approach from the point of view of industry. It seems to fall badly between two stools by saying, "the trade or industry." I should be very glad to have some explanation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has not understood what I wish to do. He may disagree with it, but I am anxious that he should understand it absolutely clearly, and the reason for it.
First of all, we all agree that if there were substantial injury to the export trade of the whole United Kingdom, no one in any quarter of the House of Commons would say that that was not a proper argument to advance. But, of course, it would be very difficult really to demonstrate in any one case substantial injury to the export trade of the whole United Kingdom. As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East and all hon. Members will know, our export trade, in the main, is made up of a vast number of quite small packets. The last thing one would wish to see is one small packet after another going down because, in the case of no one packet—and it is only one packet which would be considered at a time—could one show that there was substantial damage to the export trade of the whole United Kingdom. That would be a wholly inadequate provision.
In all the circumstances, what one has to do is to put in some provision which enables one to show that, in the case of

any particular trade or industry. there is damage which is substantial either in relation to the whole export business of the United Kingdom or in relation to the whole business, including export business, of the trade or industry.
May I remind the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East that the point he made to me in Committee. which was a very good and perfectly fair point, this being an honest attempt to meet it, was that I had gone much too far in limiting the thing simply to the export business, because one might have a trade or industry whose total turnover was infinitesimal; it might be very small, and perhaps 5 per cent. of its total production would go for export.
In those circumstances to show that a little of that, or even a substantial part of it, was lost could have no real impact or importance even when we accumulated it in case after case. That is an absolutely fair point, and we have amended the Clause so that the only case where it can he argued is the case of the substantial exporter. He has to be a substantial exporter, otherwise it could not possibly be shown that the injury was substantial in relation to the whole business, including the export business, of the trade or industry concerned.
We, thus, have the situation in which there are two arguments that can be put forward. There is the one with which we are all agreed but which I think will be very rare indeed—substantial damage to the whole of the United Kingdom export industry. The second is where there is a trade or industry, a substantial exporter, which is by the removal of these restrictions, likely to lose a substantial part of its whole business which, by implication, must in those circumstances be export business.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree at once that I made the point that it should cover the internal as well as the external business if what was intended to be taken as the criterion was the individual business. It would be utterly unjustifiable in the case of the individual trader. the individual business or indeed the individual industry, to take export as the criterion instead of export and internal trade. But that was merely meeting the right hon. Gentleman on the footing that the test was to be a private interest test and not a public interest test. If it is an


export test it is a public test, and that test should be the United Kingdom position. With regard to the United Kingdom position, the right hon. Gentleman says that one cannot prove it in the case of the United Kingdom as a whole, but the Amendment preserves that as a test.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: One test.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes, as one test, but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not pretend that one of the tests in his own Amendment, namely the United Kingdom test, is entirely nugatory. Of course, he does not do that. If it is not entirely nugatory, why should not that be made the general test? Why overlap and go on to include what is not a public interest test at all but a private interest test, namely the injury to the trade or industry? That is not a matter which should be included. It is not a public interest matter at all, and it is not within, as I say it should be, the policy of the subsection.

Mr. Thorneycroft: May I, by leave of the House, speak again to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a public interest test in both cases. Where one is judging the export trade of the whole United Kingdom, it is clearly public interest; but, equally clearly, where one is pleading the case of damage to the exports of a single trade or industry—it may be a small proportion of our total export trade, but it may be a big exporting industry in proportion to its

total production—we cannot afford to see damage done in one trade after another.
10.30 p.m.
I am not asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept my argument, but I ask him to reflect on it and then I think he will see that the public interest is served in both instances.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 9, leave out from "export" to "of" in line 10 and insert:
business which is substantial either in relation to the whole export business of the United Kingdom or in relation to the whole business (including export business)" —[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 17.—(VARIATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT.)

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 32, leave out "determination" and insert "declaration".

In line 33, leave out "(including" and insert "and".

In line 34, leave out "of the determination)" and insert "thereof".

In line 35, leave out "determination" and insert "declaration".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Further consideration of the Bill. as amended. adjourned.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Bill. as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INSHORE FISHING INDUSTRY, CORNWALL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I want to raise two aspects of the inshore fishing industry. From time to time, hon. Members have sought the opportunity to place in front of the House the difficulties of the industry and at the same time to express to the House the vital importance of the industry to our economic life and to the defence of this land. Hon. Members are well aware of the importance of the industry, not only in regard to our defence when we are in danger, but also in relation to the part that it plays in manning our lifeboat service and in this way often performing very great deeds of valour.
The first of the two aspects that I wish to raise is the pilchard industry, which is peculiar to Cornwall and part of Devon. It is concerned with the netting of pilchards. The alternative to that is long-lining, to which I shall refer in relation to dog-fish.
Lately the pilchard industry has been going through some very great difficulties. On Saturday, it was decided that the price, which had been arranged between the canners and some of the fishermen, should be reduced by 1s. per stone, from 4s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. This is in itself a very hard, harsh blow to the fishermen.
With other hon. Members, I spoke last December when the subsidy was announced. In reply to my speech, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that he would take into consideration for the next announcement with regard to subsidies the relevant factors relating to the costs of the inshore fishermen before he made his statement, which the industry is expecting in the forthcoming weeks.
The figures which the Minister is likely to have received between that time and now will have been based primarily on the price of 4s. 6d. per stone. Consequently, the reduction of 1 s. will play a very important part in the matter. I sincerely trust that, before an announcement is made about the subsidy, this will be taken fully into account.
I assume that the Minister is aware of the additional costs that the fishermen have to bear at present. For example, in the part of the industry to which I am referring, the value of nets per vessel alone is about £1,000. That means that £1,000 worth of equipment is carried in a ship with a crew of five men, including the skipper—and that £1,000 is, from a practical point of view, uninsurable. Again, the expense of insuring the hull is very considerable. At the moment, the owners of the majority of the vessels to which I am referring will insure only two-thirds of the hull, which can be done at a fairly reasonable price, but if they had to insure the additional one-third they would have to pay almost as much as they have already paid for the two-thirds. That puts a check upon any desire on the part of owners to have new vessels. Under the grant and loan scheme, quite naturally and properly the Government demand full insurance of the hull, which means that the full payment of one-third plus two-thirds has to be made.
Again, the modern inshore fishing vessel has to be equipped with an echo meter, the cost of maintenance of which, quite apart from its original cost, is £40 per annum. Maintenance costs in relation to the engine, paint, and everything else have also risen very steeply, and the capital required for each vessel is extremely high.
The argument put forward for reducing the price from 4s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a stone was that there was some fear about the importation of South African pilchards for the year 1956. I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that the trouble was not in connection with the import figure for 1954, or for 1955, but in relation to the fear about the figure for 1956. If he is unaware what that figure may be, I hope that he will look into the matter and take it into account at the same time.
In their agreements with the pilchard fishermen, the canners have stated quite fairly that they are prepared, in their turn, to submit their accounts to the White Fish Authority should that please either the fishermen or Her Majesty's Government. The Minister is also aware that on Monday there was a strike—even though is was of very short duration—at Looe and Porthleven. Most of


us will be glad that some form of provisional agreement was reached yesterday in order that vessels could still go to sea and, at the same time, canners would receive the fish which is so necessary to our economic life.
Be that as it may, although a provisional and temporary agreement has been reached, that does not make the position any the less anxious for the fishermen, because the result is a very low living wage in the inshore fleet. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider two points. In the last subsidy which came before the House, provided by Statutory Instrument No. 1937 of 1955, the Minister will no doubt have observed the categories of fish to which the subsidy applied. I will not trouble the House by reading them out, but in the middle of one of them there is the name "pilchards". If, as a result of his investigations, the Minister finds that the actual standard of life of that section of the inshore fishing fleet is below that of the others, I hope that he will give consideration to the necessity of providing a special subsidy in respect of the pilchard fleet. Will he also look into the practice of the Inland Revenue with regard to protective clothing? My information is that it is the practice of the Revenue to allow £30 a year for protective clothing in the deep sea fleets and £10 a year in the inshore fishing fleets.
Hon. Members will be fully aware that the difference between the inshore fishing fleets and the deep-sea fishing fleets is that, by definition, the vessels of the former do not stay at sea longer than 36 hours. That does not of necessity mean that a deep-sea vessel is more at sea during the year than an inshore vessel. Consequently, I cannot see why there should be any difference in the Inland Revenue allowance.
The third point, which is a matter peculiar to the pilchard industry, is the question of those pilchards which go north up to Lowestoft and elsewhere. As, unfortunately, there is no bridge over the Tamar—I know this is no concern of the Minister, but I hope that he will do all in his power to have a bridge provided—there is no priority for the fish across the ferry. This happens to be an important matter, because, although there is an alternative route, that route is so precipitous that it is impossible—a word

I hate using in this House—for the type of lorries employed in carrying the fish to use it. There is actual physical danger if they do. Consequently, if there is delay on the ferry route perishable articles like fish deteriorate very quickly.
Another point I wish to raise is that if our inshore fishermen cannot make a sufficient livelihood from pilchards it may be that they will have to turn to long-lining. In long-lining there is the matter of catching dog-fish. In order that I may put the matter on record and so that the Minister may be fully aware of the position, I want to put the following point to him.
In long-lining one has to be at sea, whether one likes it or not, for sometimes more than 36 hours. Unfortunately, the average age of our inshore fishermen today is round about 57. That means that a considerable number of them far exceed that age. It is pretty tough to be in a very small vessel at sea without sleep for 36 hours with long lines which contain some 5,000 to 6,000 hooks and somewhere in the region of seven miles of gear. It is extremely tough for any man around that age. I should like the Minister to be fully aware of that fact.
In March, 1946, I first raised in the House the question of dog-fish and the name that should attach to dog-fish. I have sought opportunities, either by interviews with Ministers, or, at the same time, by Questions or in debate, to raise this subject again and again. I must admit that over the course of these ten or eleven years I have not had much success in the matter. Consequently, I want to raise the point again tonight.
Some hon. Members will be aware that although people are apt just to refer to dog-fish, there are, in fact, three quite distinct varieties of dog-fish. One variety is the spur dog-fish, which has a grey hull and a white belly and is known from John O'Groats to Land's End as rock salmon, and sometimes by other names. It so happens that a short while ago the Daily Express ran a competition on the matter, and I was flooded with postcards giving most strange and odd names which should apply to this very sweet and very nutritious fish.
The other form of dog-fish which may possibly be more well known by those who spend their holidays at the sea is the sandy dog-fish. That has been


known at different times as the nurse-hound, which is of a brownish colour with red spots on it. It is used in parts of the east coast and elsewhere, for frying. It is sometimes eaten in the ordinary way; it is quite a good fish to eat, but it is not up to the standard of the spur dog-fish. Then there is the mellar dog, which does not look unlike the sandy dog-fish but is quite a different article. His spots are different in colour and he smells like a polecat. The quickest thing to do with him is to put him over the side or use him as bait in the lobster or crab pots.
The present position is rather strange. Up and down the countryside, it appears in order and quite correct to sell spur dog-fish as rock salmon or by some other name, and it is perfectly correct for the sandy dog-fish to sell by the name of nursehound. But the difficulty I have been trying to overcome is with the canning of spur dog-fish. In my view, there is a goodish market for this. The Middle East market, for example, might well take a considerable amount of our canned rock salmon. But there is something in a name, and "dog-fish "does not sound half as good as rock salmon, although it may be the same fish.
The reason I have raised this matter tonight is that, as I have said, I have been trying to get this point over for about ten years. I have received letters from the Ministry of Food telling me what I knew already—that different names are given to different dog-fish in different areas. I received another letter saying how surprised the Ministry were to find that I wanted the name of rock salmon used for spur dog-fish, as they thought that I wanted the name dog-fish not to be altered under any consideration. I thought that was a reasonable moment to ask for an Adjournment debate, having wanted the reverse for ten years.
These matters are not only of considerable importance to that part of the fishing industry which has played a great part in all our lives during war. and which is something rather lovely in our lives and in our way of life; it matters also to the consumer, because consumers in this country can afford to eat more fish than they are eating. Lastly, it is important for our export trade, because if we can find a method of increasing our export

trade to the benefit of our light industries and to the benefit of our fishermen, then it is something of benefit to the nation as a whole.
The hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper), and Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) have taken a very great interest in the inshore fishing industry. I sincerely trust that these matters which I have put in front of the Minister will receive his consideration. I do not expect him tonight suddenly to be able to answer me off the cuff, as it were, on a number of these matters, but I do expect him to take them into consideration and not to give me the reply which I have received unfortunately over these years from the Ministry—that it is a matter for investigation by a committee. There is a limit of time for any committee to sit.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Before the Minister replies, may I say that, as a Cornishman, I support all that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) said? I remind the Minister that the old chief industries of Cornwall were fish, copper and tin. Copper has long since gone and tin just survives, but if we are not careful fish will go, too. I believe I am correct in saying that the canners are offering to east Cornwall fishermen a price 30 per cent. below that which they have been receiving and that for which they have asked. It is vital that the fishing industry should be looked after, and I hope the Minister will do what he can about it.

10.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I want my first words to be words of congratulation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) for the interesting way in which he has presented the case tonight. I congratulate him on covering such a very wide front in 20 minutes. His interest on behalf of the fishermen of Cornwall over many years is on the record. If I may say so, his attitude has been consistent and he has shown a tenacity in pursuing his argument, particularly that which he has advanced tonight, which calls for the admiration of us all.
Let me assure him at once that we do not forget the great war record of the inshore fishermen, nor do we overlook the great part which they play in the lifeboat service. This is a contribution to our national well-being which, I think, is recognised by all sides of the House. There need be no feeling that the great contribution which they have made and are making in that direction is in any way minimised in my Department, whatever may have been contained in the letters to which my hon. Friend has made oblique reference.
He has reminded us that since the war we have had a growing pilchard-canning industry, that that industry depends on the Cornish fishermen for its supplies and that, to cover this, purchasing arrangements extending over the season have been made between the canneries and the fishermen. As he rightly says, that arrangement has resulted in a worthwhile industry. I should like to acknowledge the great part which my hon. Friend has played in bringing about that development, which brings satisfaction to all parts of Cornwall.
Events in connection with that development had been going satisfactorily until the other day, when several canners found themselves obliged to reduce the price which they felt able to pay to the fishermen because, on the one hand, of the rising costs which the canners have to meet and, on the other hand, as my hon. Friend said, of the fears which they have of competition from imported supplies.
It looked the other day as though this decision by the canners would carry some risk of local disruption, but I understand that yesterday afternoon the Looe and Porthleven fishermen expressed themselves as being prepared, under the prevailing conditions, to agree with the four canneries concerned to accept the cannery price of 3s. 6d. per stone for their pilchards instead of the 4s. 6d. which was paid previously for a short time. This was on the understanding that the canners would allow the White Fish Authority to carry out investigations into the costs of pilchard canning.
I think this is important, because their willingness to put their books at the disposal of the fishermen through the White Fish Authority conveys the impression

to me that they have nothing to hide. Although, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said, the difference in price is important, it looks as though the reasons which have been advanced for the reduction are proper reasons from their point of view.
Hon. Members will be interested to know that if an average price of 3s. 6d. per stone is earned by the fishermen they will have improved on their average gross earnings of last year. That assumes that the size of the catch is maintained. Even at a price of 3s. 6d., if they have the same catch as last year their average gross earnings will be more than those of last year.
My hon. Friend rightly placed great stress upon the increased costs and the costs generally which have to be faced in this industry, and I want to tell him that I recognise the great difference between gross earnings and net earnings. We are not unaware of that. While I note the extra costs which my hon. Friend has described, I think he will agree that the settlement which has been arrived at has been rightly arrived at by the industry and it is not a matter in which any Ministry should intervene. In the long run, that is the best approach. It is gratifying that both sides are prepared to give and take in concluding at least a provisional agreement which will keep the fishermen at sea and will allow the canners to continue to produce this valuable food.
I appreciate that this does not deal with the point made by my hon. Friend regarding the special subsidy. I have made a note of that. His suggestion is a novel one, and I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend suggested, I understand, a kind of regional subsidy, because it is only from Cornwall that we get the pilchards. While this new idea will be looked at, it would be wrong to give the impression that I can hold out any great hopes of its being accepted. On the face of it, I see many difficulties, but I will see that my right hon. Friend gives the suggestion his attention. In any event, the price of 3s. 6d. is an advance on the average of 3s. 2d. which was realised last year. This can only be a matter of pleasure to everyone concerned in the industry.
I recognise the fears described by my hon. Friend on the important question of imports. It is true that imports from


South Africa increased from 80,000 cwt. in 1954 to 173,000 cwt. in 1955, but there is no evidence whatever that the increased imports and home production together exceed the demand. There is no question of the market having been flooded. I have noted my hon. Friend's fears for the future. It is a point of concern which we will examine and keep in mind. It is not only a matter for the Ministry but one on which the people in the industry must make their own judgment.
My hon. Friend has shown great interest in the question of dog-fish for many years. In a word, his argument is that this is a fish which deserves a better name. I accept at once that it is a good, wholesome food, but the trouble is that it is popular only in certain districts. In these districts it is sold by retail under several names, and as far as I am aware the use of those names has caused no difficulties in the areas where they are understood. People know that the fish is good and worth eating. Whatever the name on the label, they have the fish and they enjoy eating it.
The standardisation of a retail name throughout the country is another question and one on which we have had representations from local authorities and the White Fish Authority. The representations from those quarters are being considered. Whatever the results, we will certainly keep in mind the point of view which my hon. Friend has pressed consistently for 11 years in this House. I am sure that the House would not expect me

to say more on that side of the argument since the matter is, in fact, under consideration.
Canned dog-fish is a new product to me. I am told that no dog-fish has been imported for many years, nor has any been canned in this country. So far as such a product is concerned, a prospective canner is not restricted in the choice of a description for his product provided the description he eventually adopts and the label he uses to get it over are in conformity with the Food and Drugs Act and the Merchandise Marks Act. If he does that, if the description of the goods on the label is not false or calculated to mislead anybody, there is nothing to stop a prospective canner going ahead and eventually having his product tested. I do not think I can give any definite promise to anybody that any name which is chosen is one which will pass the test of the court. That will have to be tested in the court before any assurance can be given.
I have noted the point which my hon. Friend has made about the difference in the Inland Revenue allowance, and this again I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend for making interesting a subject which, from its title "dog-fish", did not seem to be at all attractive.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.